Re: gEDA-user: Fwd: Parts DB API: the story so far

[Steve Meier <smeier@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Wow, I am in the 1%.

Fair enough, when geda couldn't provide capabilities for hierarchical
buses I went out and implemented my own version down to rewritting hudge
chunks of libgeda (I am calling my derivative/fork libakeda since Ales
was concerend about confussion). I also have a second project that I
have been working on which is based upon the mr1 erp suite (I have
included inventory management among other features).

http://www.garot.com/projects/mr1/default.asp

Though again I have significanty deviated from the base code.

My recent efforts in libakeda to switch the reading and writting of sch
and sym files from c code to scheme scripts is to allow supporting of
geda even as I (as I expect) deviate my file structures further from the
stock geda.

My own personal experience is that it is far far far easier to write an
sql query then it is to create data structures, input methods and search
routines from scratch.

Databases in my opinion are to complex data structures what c compilers
are to assembly language. They don't do anything you couldn't do on your
own they just make development faster.

What I find particularily amusing is that people who have set up, run
and use a cvs tool are "deadly" against rdb's and seem to think that it
takes profession IT administrators to use them. 

>From a rational stand point DJ's and Stuart's Idea of a plug in support
of rdbs is probably a good idea.

Steve Meier 


On Thu, 2007-12-20 at 13:14 -0500, Stuart Brorson wrote:
> > Trying to make the database optional even after developing its use
> > sounds hard.  Is there opposition to a database?  No database ever would
> > be limiting...
> 
> I've been watching this discussion for quite a while.  I don't want to
> derail it, since it's good to have an exchange of ideas.  However,
> since you asked, I'll chime in.
> 
> I am completely, utterly, and deadly opposed to a database, except as
> an optional plug-in -- i.e. a separate facility which the remainder of
> gEDA can run without.  If gEDA requires a database for use, then we
> lose 99% of all gEDA users.  A database is a PITA to install, build,
> maintain, administer, upgrade, and use.  It is also a dependency which
> will make gEDA uninstallable by almost everybody.
> 
> The beauty of gEDA is that it is (barely) simple enough that rank
> amateurs can figure it out and produce boards.  It is also powerful
> enough that professionals can produce low to mid-level complexity
> boards.  Don't break that feature!
> 
> My strongly held opinion is that if somebody wants a database for use
> with gEDA, what they *really* want is an ERP system (e.g. Sugar or
> something like that).  In that case, they are in a different class of
> gEDA user than gEDA's target audience of students, educators, hobbiests,
> etc.  Power users should consider paying for professional IT services
> to put an ERP system into place, and integrate it with gEDA.  Indeed,
> this represents a business opportunity which somebody should grab.
> 
> However, gEDA should continue to operate on principles of easy
> installation, easy use, and easy maintainence.
> 
> Just MHO,
> 
> Stuart
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> geda-user mailing list
> geda-user@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user



_______________________________________________
geda-user mailing list
geda-user@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user