On Jan 6, 2009, at 1:36 PM, Kai-Martin Knaak wrote: > No doubt, a data base can be fine and powerful. However, many tasks > have > to be implemented by the application. From the top of my head: > searching, editing, versioning, back-up, character encoding, > permissions, > import/export, updates, ... > > Failure to do these tasks properly would cripple the user > experience. A > directory based approach can refer the user to the general tools of > the > OS. No need to spend valuable developer resources on this kind of > infrastructure.
Yes! If you keep your project's symbols together in a project symbol directory, this is very easy. Each symbol file encodes a relation, including graphics, and is conveniently editable in gschem. The files are also easy to process with classic text tools. That's your database. But there seems to be a mental block here. We keep trying to make the library symbols more usable, and don't "get" that that's a road a billion files long. The library symbols are templates only: a facility to automatically copy a selected symbol to the project symbol directory is needed. Do that, and the user is defended from library changes, "Hs" works right (you can edit the symbol), and you can minimize promotion of attributes (most belong in the database, not the schematic) and editing of promoted attributes (just change the symbol, not every instance). Better leverage. John Doty Noqsi Aerospace, Ltd. http://www.noqsi.com/ [email protected] _______________________________________________ geda-user mailing list [email protected] http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
