Re: gEDA-user: PCB suggestion

[Karel Kulhavy <clock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Sun, Jan 09, 2005 at 01:25:47PM -0500, DJ Delorie wrote:
> 
> IMHO changing the file format to XML (1) makes pcb far more complex
> than it needs to be, and (2) offers no useful benefits.  Given that
> pcb already has two file parsers (one is generic, one for current and
> older pcb files) and will always *need* the current pcb file parser
> (for backwards compatibility), you will never REPLACE the parser with
> XML, you will only ADD a parser for XML.
> 
> To add an XML parser, we'd need to either (1) write one (waste of
> time), (2) copy an existing one (then keep it up to date forever) or
and enjoy it's bugs...

Let's say that one library has reliability of 0.99.
Then a program using 3 libraries has reliability of 0.97
10 libraries 0.90
20 libraries 0.82
40 libraries 0.69

There is a mathematical reason to keep the number of libraries down ;-)

Cl<

> (3) link against an installed one (causing user confusion and
> complexity).  Are any of these worth the effort, just to change from a
> pcb-specific ASCII file to a pcb-ignorant ASCII file?
> 
> Given the above, I wouldn't recommend anyone with time on their hands
> go out and try to wedge an XML system into PCB.  Without a really good
> benefit to offset the problems, and without a valid discourse to
> debate and select a course of action that will benefit pcb for a long
> time, it's likely that such a patch will not be accepted.  (and no,
> it's not my decision).
> 
> If you've got time on your hands and you want to work on PCB, ask
> Harry or Dan which of the many bugs and feature requests residing on
> sourceforge most need attention.