Edward Hennessy wrote:
On Apr 29, 2010, at 2:14 AM, Armin Faltl wrote:To express the many-to-many relation between parts and symbols it uses a table called "device". This is fed by the infamous device attribute in the symbol libraries. There's nothing wrong in the theory of DB-design with it, but the indiscriminate use of this attribute in the symbol-libs waters the use of this design down to uselessness.I'm investigating another mechanism to create a part 'class' with some existing data in the part library. Using the device attribute for this causes problems. I am pondering the first portion of the symbol filename. So, 'resistor-1.sym' is part of the 'resistor' class. Any other suggestions?
Thank you for still working on this hard topic at all.Do I understand you correct: you want to limit the range of symbols, that are possible
to connect to a given part, based on a part classification?I don't recall all the details of the DB layout, but i fear, the only solution is to manually
enter meaningful device values in the symbol libraries.I'm not aware, that the device attribute is used for anything in the current workflow,
thus the quality of the entries.If one sets out to map devices to a part classification, I'd suggest ':'-notation like "diode:schottky" or "transistor:power:igbt". Therefore it is questionable, to completely preset this value in the symbol library at all - maybe just the 1st element.
This would require a strict rule: something that does not have the same symbol mustn't have the same top category: MOSFET != transistor or the top categories would need to be 'transistor:mosfet' and 'transistor:bipolar' - I'm getting confused...
_______________________________________________ geda-user mailing list geda-user@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user