On 01:51 PM 20/12/2001 -0500, Bagotronix Tech Support said:
>Oh, well.  Bad ideas never die.  They just get recycled :-(    Or reborn.
>Hey, maybe that's why they call it "Phoenix"!
>IMO, most all-in-one files suck.  Does the Windows registry come to mind?

I agree with this statement, mostly.

>Corruption of a single file can ruin the whole system and it's applications.
>The all-in-one file concept has been refuted long ago.  Look at the
>Unix/Linux system:  lots of little configuration files.  It's hard to
>remember where they are, but at least you don't have to search through
>unrelated stuff inside the file, and corruption of that one file won't ruin
>the entire system.

I disagree with this one - the Unix/Linux arrangement of many interacting 
config files in multiple places is not an example I would like to see 
propagated - think why *nix is only used by computer geeks. Not a model 
that can claim wide success.  It will take a radical improvement in 
installing and maintaining the OS, and managing and installing applications 
before *nix enjoys wide success with the wider non-geek public.  I will 
happily follw this part of this thread onto the OT list for ongoing 
(reasoned) discussion  - and my re-education :-)

I much prefer the INI file concept - but not stored in the Windows 
directory.  It has always been pleasing to me that Protel largely eschewed 
the registry in favour of its various INI/RCS files.  Now we just need them 
to allow us to control where the config files reside.  This is where the 
registry may have some use.  A central data store of pointers to the 
locations of program's config file locations.  (In the registry's favour - 
it is much faster than ini file access, but it is good to know that many 
companies (including MS) are moving away from indiscriminate use of the 
Registry as the be-all-and-end-all.)

I do accept that the *nix style config files can be smarter the simple INI 
files and there are sometimes advantages to this.  I just hate the scatter 
gun approach to configuration that has developed and seems not to have been 
questioned during *nix's growth.

>However, I do like Protel's DDB file, for the most part.  The only thing I
>can't stand about it is that if you merely open it to look at what's inside,
>it updates the file date and time.  Ridiculous!

One assumes that with the "Support for full version control with interfaces 
to popular third-party version control tools such as Visual Source Safe" 
there is some method of storing files that does not twiddle the dates on 

There is a press release on the Protel WWW site as well as the EE Times 
article, the press release gives some different emphasis.

On integrated libraries - I have no problem with the concept of integrated 
libraries - it really comes down to implementation, and whether it will 
*force* a pattern of use rather than allow a new pattern. One assumes it 
will be able to support old designs, so maybe there is a method of using 
separate libraries much as we do now.  Better library management and 
traceability has been something that many of us have been screaming for for 
a long time.  The current system does not lend itself to any sort of 
reliable configuration control.  Can you say for sure which library a 
symbol/footprint came from?

I, for one, am not fussed by the integrated libraries per se but, as usual, 
the devil is no doubt in the detail.

Ian Wilson

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* To post a message: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
* To leave this list visit:
* http://www.techservinc.com/protelusers/leave.html
* Contact the list manager:
* Forum Guidelines Rules:
* http://www.techservinc.com/protelusers/forumrules.html
* Browse or Search previous postings:
* http://www.mail-archive.com/proteledaforum@techservinc.com
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Reply via email to