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
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
