On Wed, 26 Dec 2007, Steve Meier wrote: > Just to expand the vocabulary... two words.. > > plugins > > translators > > I am convinced that the complexity of the data is better suited for db's > then flat files. > > Stuart is "deadly" upposed to requiring a db engine inorder to run geda.
*chuckle* It is certainly true that if a DB is required to run gEDA, it will be the death of the project since nobody except ueber-hackers will be able to figure out how to design even a simple board. That would be bad for everybody working with gEDA. (But would be good for Kicad, I suppose....) > Plugins provides a solution to db or not to db. I have been made to understand that any changes made to base gEDA/gaf functionality will be made through hooks allowing use of optional modules -- a.k.a. plugins. Therefore, the base functionality of gEDA/gaf will remain stripped down and bare, while those who want to use flat files, databases, or whatever else will be free to hook them in. I think this makes plenty of sense. There were several different, conflicting visions of what kind of component browser would be used with gEDA/gaf. The nice thing about hooks into libgeda/gschem/whatever is that users are free to write their *own* module for component browsing -- one which suits their individual vision of what a component browser should look like. Again, I think this makes the most sense. The question then becomes: What do the hooks look like? DBUS? Some swig thing? Anyway, I will continue to mostly lurk on this thread, but I was amused that you remembered how adament I was about not requiring a database. I'm glad I got my point across! Cheers, Stuart _______________________________________________ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user