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

[Levente <leventelist@xxxxxxxxx>]

Stuart Brorson <sdb@xxxxxxxxxx> 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.

You are right, but it took me 5 minutes to install MySQL server, and a PHP
client. But still, gEDA must operate without database.

> 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!

Agreed. So I think that is why I we should stay with the current fileformats.
Like I said there is no need for the BOM thing, as it just enhances
complexity. We'd only need at maximum some module that is able to contact a
database, query information, and set/change attributes. And the whole thing as
an option. gEDA is really a nice and easy tool. We really should not change
this feature.

Just my EUR 0.02


-- 
Levente
http://web.interware.hu/lekovacs



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