On Sat, 20 Oct 2007 11:38:30 -0400, DJ Delorie wrote: > Why project-in-file at all?
In protel99SE you can choose whether the project will be written to an ordinary directory, or put in a data base that yields a single binary file. In my former day job we switched from data base style to file system style. The reason was, that the self contained database file could only be accessed via protel, which showed some nasty bugs. E.g. invisible backup files were bloating the project to the point that a simple project took tens of MB. Lesson to be learned: The file system utilities of unix, or even windows are way better designed and debugged, than whatever you use to access the entities integrated in a file. > Why not define the "project" as "this directory" ? Isn't this what geda, vaguely already does? After all, unless yu tell it otherwise, it will put all its output files to $PWD and read gschemrc/ gafrc from $PWD. > Various sub-projects could exist in the same directory, sharing a > symbol/footprint database. Well-known file extensions could be used to > map files to various control purposes (I use "*.prj" for every > gschem->pcb grouping). > > That way, we retain the unix file/script design, we get a heirarchy for > free, and yet it's self-contained. plus all the well known tools like grep, locate, awk, and of course file managers of all UI flavors, that like to work on files and directories. You might have guessed it: I am in favor of the directory solution. ---<(kaimartin)>--- -- Kai-Martin Knaak http://lilalaser.de/blog _______________________________________________ geda-dev mailing list [email protected] http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-dev
