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

[Stuart Brorson <sdb@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Wed, 26 Dec 2007, Steve Meier wrote:

> Just to expand the vocabulary... two words..
>
> plugins
>
> translators
>
> I am convinced that the complexity of the data is better suited for db's
> then flat files.
>
> Stuart is "deadly" upposed to requiring a db engine inorder to run geda.

*chuckle*

It is certainly true that if a DB is required to run gEDA, it will be
the death of the project since nobody except ueber-hackers will be
able to figure out how to design even a simple board.  That would be
bad for everybody working with gEDA.  (But would be good for Kicad, I
suppose....)

> Plugins provides a solution to db or not to db.

I have been made to understand that any changes made to base gEDA/gaf
functionality will be made through hooks allowing use of optional
modules -- a.k.a. plugins.  Therefore, the base functionality of
gEDA/gaf will remain stripped down and bare, while those who want to
use flat files, databases, or whatever else will be free to hook them
in.  I think this makes plenty of sense.

There were several different, conflicting visions of what kind of
component browser would be used with gEDA/gaf.   The nice thing about
hooks into libgeda/gschem/whatever is that users are free to write
their *own* module for component browsing -- one which suits their
individual vision of what a component browser should look like.
Again, I think this makes the most sense.

The question then becomes:  What do the hooks look like?  DBUS?  Some
swig thing?

Anyway, I will continue to mostly lurk on this thread, but I was
amused that you remembered how adament I was about not requiring a
database.  I'm glad I got my point across!

Cheers,

Stuart


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