Re: gEDA-user: Introduction and some questions/thoughts on gEDA/gaf...

[Olgierd Eysymontt <olgierd.eysymontt@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

I think all solves with a good search engine, it's the same as with your
own email, classify them it's too much work, it's simpler just to search
what you need.

Olgierd
 

On Tue, 2005-09-13 at 21:41 -0500, Mark Rages wrote:
> On 9/13/05, Stuart Brorson <sdb@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> > My opinion is this:  Ultimately, all ways of organizing the parts
> > database are equally bad.  Therefore, a better solution would be to
> > create a better parts browser.  Ideally, a parts browser would
> > incorporate a Google-like search mechanism allowing you to type in an
> > aribtrary string -- e.g. component part no, some component properties
> > ("resistor 1.00K 0805"), or company name and functionality ("analog
> > devices opamp") -- and let the search engine give you a list of
> > possible parts from which to choose.  In this scheme, the parts could
> > be organized in any way desired (by mfr, by catagory, or whatever),
> > and you could either find them the usual way, or find them by using a
> > Google-type string search.
> > 
> > I realize that this is an ambitious change to gEDA's current parts
> > browser, so it may not happen any time soon.  Alas!  We can dream,
> > can't we?!?  Meanwhile, I think we could simply tweak the current,
> > mixed scheme, and it would be a worthwhile improvement.
> 
> A good parts browser would work like Flickr or Gmail.  Instead of
> sorting photos or mail into a heirarchy of folders, you apply tags. 
> So a PIC uP would get a "Microchip" tag, a "microprocessor" tag, maybe
> a "digital IC" tag.  Many part attributes would be a natural
> candidates for tags.
> 
> Hierarchical databases were cool 40 years ago.  But now the cutting
> edge of technology has caught up to the 70's and relational databases.
> 
> Regards,
> Mark
> markrages@gmail