Re: gEDA-user: symbol databases, was Re: Wish list, sort of

[John Doty <jpd@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Jan 6, 2009, at 1:36 PM, Kai-Martin Knaak wrote:

> No doubt, a data base can be fine and powerful. However, many tasks  
> have
> to be implemented by the application. From the top of my head:
> searching, editing, versioning,	back-up, character encoding,  
> permissions,
> import/export, updates, ...
>
> Failure to do these tasks properly would cripple the user  
> experience. A
> directory based approach can refer the user to the general tools of  
> the
> OS. No need to spend valuable developer resources on this kind of
> infrastructure.

Yes! If you keep your project's symbols together in a project symbol  
directory, this is very easy. Each symbol file encodes a relation,  
including graphics, and is conveniently editable in gschem. The files  
are also easy to process with classic text tools. That's your database.

But there seems to be a mental block here. We keep trying to make the  
library symbols more usable, and don't "get" that that's a road a  
billion files long.

The library symbols are templates only: a facility to automatically  
copy a selected symbol to the project symbol directory is needed. Do  
that, and the user is defended from library changes, "Hs" works right  
(you can edit the symbol), and you can minimize promotion of  
attributes (most belong in the database, not the schematic) and  
editing of promoted attributes (just change the symbol, not every  
instance). Better leverage.

John Doty              Noqsi Aerospace, Ltd.
http://www.noqsi.com/
jpd@xxxxxxxxx




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