> As for part naming, I think that only exact part numbers, down to the
> full suffix will do in such a database. Though you can search for just
the
> prefixes in the database, we don't need the 'Napster' equivalent happening
> here, but it will happen anyways.
The problem with full suffix is that many parts use suffix modifiers for
non-physical specification. For example, temperature and speed grades.
Perhaps some standard for indicating wildcards in those suffix character
positions is needed. For example, MAX186??AP is a MAX186 of any precision
grade and temp grade, with an SSOP20 package. Note: this is not an
endorsement of Maxim parts! Does anyone know if the wildcard character '?'
is acceptable in footprint names? I haven't tried it. If not, some other
non-alphanumeric character must be used (maybe '_'). Of course, this
example is a chip. Many special footprints will be connectors and passives,
not chips. The situation still applies, however. AMP (or Tyco, whatever
they are calling themselves this week) connecters come in many variants with
similar footprints.
About Napster-like file sharing, the problem with it is that the person who
has what you want has to be online when you want it. I don't like the idea
of exposing my workstation PC to the outside world with an open tunnel
through the firewall, and having to leave it on all the time. That's why we
need a website to host this thingy.
Best regards,
Ivan Baggett
Bagotronix Inc.
website: www.bagotronix.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Brian Guralnick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Protel EDA Forum" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2001 11:29 AM
Subject: Re: [PEDA] a lib. for everyone
> For validation, on the PCB side, I used to place a 'scanned version'
in
> a translucent state, of the part over the footprint. I've been able to
find
> and correct many footprint problems in advance using this technique. If
> such an ability was built into Protel & a copy of the scan was kept with
the
> footprint in the library this would help ease proofing of the footprint.
>
> As for part naming, I think that only exact part numbers, down to the
> full suffix will do in such a database. Though you can search for just
the
> prefixes in the database, we don't need the 'Napster' equivalent happening
> here, but it will happen anyways.
>
> I also think that each component should also come with it's own
> footprint, with the attached component name to it. Otherwise, matching
> component footprint name could create a cross mess.
>
> I don't think that pin 1 should always be center. For example, SMD
LED
> which require placement based on their center of the footprint, or even a
> slight offset which may be by design.
>
> We would need a database sharing tool, like sort a like 'Napster'.
When
> searching for a particular part, a spec column would list:
> 1) user's source of part
> 2) user who entered part, date of entry
> 3) component part number / type / included /
> 4) footprint part number / type / included / metric / imperial / pin1
> center /
>
> Though, to properly set this up, I have no clue there...
>
> ____________
> Brian Guralnick
>
>
>
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* To post a message: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
*
* To leave this list visit:
* http://www.techservinc.com/protelusers/leave.html
* - or email -
* mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?body=leave%20proteledaforum
*
* Contact the list manager:
* mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
*
* Browse or Search previous postings:
* http://www.mail-archive.com/proteledaforum@techservinc.com
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
