Re: gEDA-user: More robust support of multi-part symbols.

[Bill Gatliff <bgat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

John Luciani wrote:
>    On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 2:08 PM, Bill Gatliff <[1]bgat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>    wrote:
>
>    John Luciani wrote:
>    >    aggregates the attributes manufacturer and
>    manufacturer_part_number,
>    >
>
>      Are those two attributes a common convention?  I've been using
>      manufacturer= and manufacturer_partnumber=.  I've also been doing
>      vendor_partnumber_digikey= and vendor_partnumber_mouser=, but I'm
>      not so
>      sure those are useful enough to keep doing so.
>
>    Putting vendor information into the schematic is not a good idea.
>    I use Postgres tables for that mapping. You could get the relations
>    using text files and hashes.
>    Ideally you would not put manufacturer information in the schematic
>    either.
>    You would have a master parts list with your own part number that does
>    a one-to-many map to multiple vendors. Since that database is a bit
>    of work to setup and maintain I use manufacturer and
>    manufacturer_part_number.
>   

Makes sense to me.  Especially since vendors like DigiKey and Mouser
have search engines that can match to manufacturer part numbers.


b.g.

-- 
Bill Gatliff
bgat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx




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