Re: gEDA-user: General Layers questions

[DJ Delorie <dj@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

> We are talking about different thinks, I guess.

Probably.

> The tool shall be very focussed on traces, elements, vias.

To be this kind of focused, it needs to have some understanding of
what a via is.  You wouldn't want to invoke the via editor on a trace,
but you wouldn't want the "move" option on a trace to not be able to
move either the endpoints or the whole trace.  Regardless of how the
underlying data is stored, the tools need to organize the data in a
way that helps them serve the user, and be aware of various levels of
semantics that need to be applied to what would otherwise be
meaningless groups of composites.

For example:

User level - a via is a connection between layers that I can add,
remove, edit, and move around.

Tool level - a via is an anonymous (i.e. not part of an element) hole
between layers electrically connecting copper pads on each layer.

Data layer - a via is a collection of N shapes on M conducting layers,
with a collection of one or more shapes penetrating the insulators
between those layers.


I feel that the data layer is easiest to implement, but it seems to be
what we're arguing about the most.  I say we should ignore that
problem for now, until we have a better understanding of what we want
at the other two layers.  The tool layer is going to be the hardest to
design, because that's where we blend flexibility with ease of use.
Picking the right tool-level design will give us both flexibility and
ease of use ("use" includes both the user and the plugin writer).


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