Sorry - I have to admit that I did not get that or overread it - my fault!
I still think adding an index suffix to the base filename as proposed in App: Storage access framework would be the best solution.
If the android interface does not provide such an interface, perhaps it is possible to check, if target name exists - if yes - and add / increase an index to the base name suffix.
From my point of view searching the name of the previous version in a file list and tap on it just to copy the name is quite uncomfortable.
As far as I understood the old export interface with overwrite hint will not work with future Android - but for my use cases that solution had several advantages.
I am not familiar with android programming, but just doing a google search for “android storage access framework overwrite” there is a hit on stackoverflow, that describes a possibility to overwrite existing files: https://stackoverflow.com/questions/56902845/how-to-properly-overwrite-content-of-file-using-android-storage-access-framework
So perhaps a combination of the old system with overwrite warning and the SAF might be possible…but perhaps I misunderstood that or even did not understand the problem.
No reaction ? The changes with Android seems too intense to me (user !) to immediately respond just like that in a ‘wild’ way without sufficient knowledge about the new situation. I suppose many users do not know what exactly is coming to us with the newest Android policy. The message so far does not seem attractive to me. Once again it seems that Android is cutting the legs from under their own chair. Causing the same misery as ever with that A 4.4 Kit Kat version with the barely accessible external sd card. As a normal Android user, I fear the worst and nothing to cheer about. For developers probably a lot of headaches to keep existing apps workable. No? The first question about the adoptable storage if someone is aware of it. What are those damn ‘streams’ then ?
Android’s storage access framework should allow full SD card access.
Apps struggled with its integration, until it will become mandatory now.
It means that apps cannot know regular file names or paths, as we all know them.
Apps are allowed to only process content as stream, i.e. directly the internal bytes. And since the framework is external to the apps, we can only call it, not change it.
If filename already exists and I do not tap on old file, index is attached behind extension (-> xyz.GPX (1) ) as expected.
Tapping on old file leads to overwriting
Tapping on .Kurviger file in Total Commander did not open it in Kurviger (I do not know why - worked with previous Kurviger versions). I fixed that by adding an internal association also for .kurviger files as described in
I had opened other local map files yesterday - then Kurviger used my map folder to store my GPX export - would it be possible to keep 2 paths in mind - one for local maps and one for import/export? I like separating them: Maps on SD card due to memory consumption, import/export in Kurviger folder to be able to open from Total Commander.
I found a workaround: There is also a Kurviger folder on SD Card, in that folder I added two folders for my import/export (“GPX”) and my maps (“maps”), so navigating from one folder to the other is just 2 taps - and opening files in that folders out of Total Commander in Kurviger works
yes please, if overwriting is not working with the new framework (and it doesn’t work, not official and not inofficial, even if a file is selected before) and adding counters to the extension is so boring.
Maybe others also have troubles to overwrite existing files with the new framework. At least I didn’t succeed til now. The overwriting of an existing route is working in the following way when exporting a route:
“…the developers highlight how Android’s Scoped Storage changes will limit the emulator’s functionality. It notes that because of the poor performance of the Storage Access Framework API, game list loading times have been increased by more than tenfold. While that doesn’t affect actual emulation performance, it will take a toll on user experience. Additionally, the API’s limitations will force the developers to drop some features, like customizing paths…”