Pros of Jellyfin

• Broader media support: Handles various types of media including video, audio, and photos
• More mature project with a larger community and ecosystem
• Offers client apps for multiple platforms (mobile, smart TVs, etc.)

Cons of Jellyfin

• Higher resource requirements due to its broader scope
• More complex setup and configuration process
• Potentially overwhelming for users only interested in comic/manga management

Code Comparison

Jellyfin (C#):

public class MediaSourceInfo
{
    public string Path { get; set; }
    public string Protocol { get; set; }
    public MediaProtocol? MediaProtocol { get; set; }
    public TransportStreamTimestamp TransportStreamTimestamp { get; set; }
    public Dictionary<string, string> RequiredHttpHeaders { get; set; }
}

Komga (Kotlin):

data class Book(
    val id: String,
    val name: String,
    val url: String,
    val number: Float,
    val created: LocalDateTime,
    val lastModified: LocalDateTime,
    val fileLastModified: LocalDateTime,
    val sizeBytes: Long,
    val metadata: BookMetadata = BookMetadata(),
    val media: Media = Media()
)

Both projects use strongly-typed languages and object-oriented programming. Jellyfin's code reflects its broader media support, while Komga's focuses on book-specific attributes. Jellyfin uses C# properties, while Komga utilizes Kotlin's data classes for concise object definitions.

Pros of Kavita

• More extensive file format support, including EPUB and PDF
• Advanced user management with granular permissions
• Built-in OPDS server for easy integration with e-readers

Cons of Kavita

• Slower development pace and less frequent updates
• Less mature codebase, potentially leading to more bugs
• Fewer third-party integrations compared to Komga

Code Comparison

Kavita (C#):

public async Task<bool> DirectoryExists(string path)
{
    return await Task.Run(() => Directory.Exists(path));
}

Komga (Kotlin):

suspend fun directoryExists(path: String): Boolean = withContext(Dispatchers.IO) {
    Files.exists(Paths.get(path))
}

Both projects implement similar functionality for checking directory existence, but Kavita uses C# with async/await pattern, while Komga uses Kotlin coroutines. Komga's implementation is more concise and leverages Kotlin's built-in file handling utilities.

Overall, Kavita offers broader file format support and more advanced user management, making it suitable for users with diverse content types. Komga, on the other hand, benefits from a more active development community and a more stable codebase, which may be preferable for users seeking reliability and frequent updates.

Pros of Calibre-web

• Supports a wider range of e-book formats, including EPUB, MOBI, and PDF
• Integrates directly with Calibre's database, leveraging its metadata management
• Offers more advanced user management and book lending features

Cons of Calibre-web

• Requires an existing Calibre database, which may be complex for new users
• Less optimized for comic book and manga reading compared to Komga
• UI can be less modern and responsive, especially on mobile devices

Code Comparison

Calibre-web (Python):

@app.route("/book/<int:book_id>")
@login_required_if_no_ano
def show_book(book_id):
    entries = db.session.query(db.Books).filter(db.Books.id == book_id).first()
    return render_title_template('book.html', entry=entries, title=entries.title)

Komga (Kotlin):

@GetMapping("/{bookId}")
fun getBook(@PathVariable bookId: Long): BookDto =
    bookRepository.findByIdOrNull(bookId)?.toDto()
        ?: throw ResponseStatusException(HttpStatus.NOT_FOUND)

Both repositories provide web-based interfaces for managing and reading digital book collections. Calibre-web is more suited for traditional e-books and integrates with Calibre, while Komga specializes in comic books and manga with a modern, responsive interface. The code snippets show different approaches to routing and database queries, reflecting their respective languages and frameworks.