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 view-only. 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: * mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * Forum Guidelines Rules: * http://www.techservinc.com/protelusers/forumrules.html * * Browse or Search previous postings: * http://www.mail-archive.com/proteledaforum@techservinc.com * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
