Thanks Pete and Al for your responses. On Feb 7, 2008 7:07 PM, al davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thursday 07 February 2008, Newell Jensen wrote: > > So would you be the main "overseer" for the Project Manager > > or only if it dealt in some way with xgsch2pcb? > > As Peter said, that is between you and all of us. > > > Who would be > > the main design architect for this > > You!!! Well said. I like it when people get to the point. > > > To do it right, it is a very difficult project. Several others > have tried and failed. What is needed is a framework that can > be expanded as the system grows. If you design it around the > tools we have now, it will fail. We need it designed around > the "vapor" tools we don't have yet, and what is in the works > and not released yet. > I already thought of this and I totally agree. > > It's not just schematic and board layout! We have simulation, > both analog and digital. On the fringes, there are people > working on synthesis, electromagnetic simulation of boards, > static timing analysis. Another step away there are a bunch of > tools that are not really gEDA but are available now as > free/open-source. > > A good project manager will accomodate all this. I think it > means you need to start from scratch. > Yes, you are probably right. > > > and has anyone come up > > with a design for how they want the work flow to be > > abstracted? > > No. > > > If not, was the student supposed to come up with > > this? > > Yes. We will help you, or at least try. That is good, I will definitely need it. > > > There has been some debate about it, but no decisions. The > decisions are made by the person doing the work. The rest of > us can express an opinion, but the real decision is yours. > > > I am willing to start looking at the source of the > > different projects and seeing how to interface them but if > > someone has already done a lot of the brain work on this > > already and /or there is a set preference among the gEDA user > > base to have it a certain way, that would be useful > > information. > > I think most people here agree that it must remain extremely > flexible. Give users a choice of how to work, and what tools > to use or not use. It should be able to really support the > tools, not just a subset of the features. Then think of what > it would take to make it suitable for undergraduates. > > The best architecture would be one that allows others to make > extensions. It is probably easiest if you use an interpreted > language. Speed is not a factor, so there is no need for a > compiled language. Writing in an interpreted language makes it > easier to extend, and to distribute experimental modules. > > The only real requirement that might restrict your choice of > language is licensing and portability. The whole set of tools, > including compilers, etc. must be truly free, and easily > available on multiple platforms. I will use Python and PyGTK. Its supported on all the major platforms that I know of and is perfect for all of this. > > > > The first main step is to figure out a design > > that would be worth while with most of the kinks thought out. > > Since this was already a proposed project for GSoC 2007 has > > this part been worked on by anyone? Thanks. > > No, but even if it has, you have no obligation to use it. > > If you can come up with a design that can be extended to do all > this, that will be more than anyone else has been able to do > with this. That will be plenty for a summer. The extensions > can come later. I am going to do some brainstorming about some possible plans of attack and will get back to the list and bounce my ideas off of you guys. > > > > _______________________________________________ > geda-dev mailing list > [email protected] > http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-dev >
_______________________________________________ geda-dev mailing list [email protected] http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-dev
