kicad-developers team mailing list archive
-
kicad-developers team
-
Mailing list archive
-
Message #01427
Re: Fileformats and library
-
To:
kicad-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
-
From:
"khiraly k" <khiraly@...>
-
Date:
Fri, 4 Apr 2008 00:40:27 +0200
-
In-reply-to:
<9b3302af0803311427i5b210854h68e2f7b4d31e6566@...>
Hi!
Just some thoughts about the others comments.;)
Richard wrote:
> I don't think these should be installed world writeable or anything
> like that as a solution. I think it's reasonable to have people copy
> and modify ones if they like, but the way to do that is probably to
> allow overrides, i.e. look in users home directory and use symbols
> from there instead of the stock ones if they have the same name.
If we separate the libraries to invidual files there is *no need*
to copy the whole library to my home directory. I can just add
new device to the appropriate library by creating the device and
placing into the appropriate folder.
Example:
Goal: I want to create an optoisolator schematic into the device library.
Current method: Copy the device.lib file where i can modify, and add it.
* difficulty: new kicad release may contain new schematics in
the device library (how to merge?)
Proposed method:
1. Create a library/device directory.
2. draw the schematic
3. save into library/device/optoisolator.dsch
4. add the library directory to the project
>> One schematic/footprint/package one file:
>>
>> There is no need to collect multiple schematic inside one file. There are
>> dedicated tools for that (an archiver: .zip, .tar.gz), if the size
matters.
>Yes, please put them in a zip file, or some other such archive. There
>is something horribly inefficient about lots small files when one
>large one will do. I agree with your logic though, having separate
>files for each symbol. Using an archive seems logical to get the
>advantages of both, just takes a little more effort to implement.
I disagree here. Your point about diskusage is not valid when
a megabyte diskspace costs next to nothing.
Currently the whole kicad schematic library contains 1111 schematic symbols.
(for i in *; do cat $i |grep ^#\ |grep -v ^#$>>tmp.txt; done;
cat tmp.txt|wc -l)
My linux kernel which is installed under /usr/src (by the system!) contains
63981 files! (cd /usr/src/linux; ls -R -1 |wc -l)
My /usr directory contains 234408 files.
Should I really care for thousands of files? I dont think so.
IF you want to give your project to somebody, in that case would be handy
an export function which do the following things:
* collect all used schematics, footprints, 3d packages into a library
subdirectory in the project directory
* zip the project directory into a .zip file.
>> And while we are it, it would be nice also to use standard URI-s instead
of
>> C:\\Document and settings\\Username\\Desktop\\kicad\\library and
>> /home/username/Desktop/kicad/library
>Nice yeah, but I wouldn't think that important unless you set up your
>systems identically so you can move between them with the same path
>settings.
Could be added multiple library locations, and if kicad does not find one,
also fallback to the other.
Or using relative paths...
But standard URIs are a step forward.
>Not really. They can be individual for development purposed and zipped
>up at build time, so developers get the full advantage.
>For users who want to modify a symbol: instead of copying a file to
>their home dir from the kicad install dir they unzip a file to their
>home dir from the installed kicad library archive. Essentially the
>same thing.
Why the user would need to copy the whole library into their home
directory in the first place?
Just create the appropriate "libraryname" subdirectory and place
ONE file into it (what he had created).
The current situation is, that you need copy the whole library...
AND if he wants to share their work, he could just send that file.
It is easy and intuitive.
>> Separate or combined? We are talking about SEPARATE!
>Both are possible, combine the advantages. We are talking about
>separating out the symbols into individual items, which can be easily
>edited or transferred as individual items, collecting those individual
>items into an archive doesn't preclude that (different to the current
>non-separable system).
>I believe this approach would produce the required advantages, what
>are the disadvantages about a built time zip for the shipped
>libraries?
When you ship Kicad, it is already zipped. (or tar.gz).
Why do you want to zip yet one more time?
(zip the individual library groups (power, device, xilinx, valves, etc),
and you zip the whole thing one more time. It does not results smaller
file size. But does hide some important details from the user)
I think zipping is useful, when the user want to export a project with
all the necessary informations and files, and dont really want to carry
what files are needed. Just export it through file->export, and archive/send
the resulted .zip file.
Jonas Diemer wrote:
> How about including all symbols, footprints etc., which are used in a
kicad
> schematic/pcb in the kicad file itself? This way, you always have the
correct
> version of library components packaged with the document itself. This
would
> greatly simplify sharing of files and also removes the need of versioning
of
> library components.
As Milan already pointed out, there are some autosave capabilities in kicad.
I would like to take the opportunity and discuss the project hierarchies
too.;)
Currently kicad saves many files into the same directory where the project
files
locate cluttering that folder.
Following hierarchy makes more sense:
projectname/
the directory with the same name (the same as now)
projectname/projectname.pro (project file)
projectname/projectname.brd (pcb)
projectname/projectname.sch (schematic)
projectname/projectname.net (netlist)
But nothing else. All the other file should place in a subdirectory auto,
because
these files are autogenerated.
projectname/auto/projectname.cmp
projectname/auto/projectname.bak
projectname/auto/$savepcb.000
projectname/auto/$savepcb.brd
And the schematics, footprints and 3dpackages used in the project placed
into
a library directory:
projectname/library/schematic/
projectname/library/footprint/
projectname/library/3dpackage/
Now exporting the project is nothing else, just zipping this directory.
Please note that suggestion does not depend of the fileformat changing.
It is a simple reorganizing. In the library folder we can put what we save
now:
projectname/library/projectname.cache.lib, until the new fileformat take
effect.
Remy: Your dreams are really complicated;)
At work I use an electrical designing package: eplan electric.
It is a big useless bloatware. There are many function integrated into it,
but none
of them all really usable. I can pull many other example for this all in one
program
solution (openoffice a yet another another example, many function into one
program. Or evolution
under linux (calendar, email client, taskmanager,etc)
I'm more in unix philosophy. Make small usable programs, which handle small
jobs but
handles that damn good. So for example I could perfectly imagine a totally
independant
library browser which are implemented in python and independant from kicad.
I could also imagine dedicated websites for what you are asking:
> If a library manager / editor is to be considered, the following
> features can be incorporated (gradually) :
> library browsing, exploring, searching in « official » and in personal
> libraries with criterias
... where you can search, lists the parts (the parts fileformat is
really usefull here), and even make wiki-like so others can contribute,
and turn impossible to doable.
If you want all imaginable function integrate into one program, you will
1. never finish (or even get close to it)
2. you create a big monster, what nobody can manage or understand it.
>> « Human unreadable » means that you need
>> another tool to be able to « read » the file..
Human readable and managable (I think). So less then (lets say) 200 line.
It is important if we want to see 3rd party application to born.
So the (independant/new) developers can easily understand and implement
the relevant parts of the fileformat (if required). So im in favor of some
xml fileformat. There are ready-made libraries to handle it.
Uff, said enough.
Best regards,
Khiraly
------=_Part_3812_16478036.1207262427514 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline
<span style="font-family: courier new,monospace;">Hi!</span><br style="font-family: courier new,monospace;"><br style="font-family: courier new,monospace;"><span style="font-family: courier new,monospace;">Just some thoughts about the others comments.;)</span><br style="font-family: courier new,monospace;">
<br style="font-family: courier new,monospace;"><span style="font-family: courier new,monospace;">Richard wrote:</span><br style="font-family: courier new,monospace;"><br style="font-family: courier new,monospace;"><span style="font-family: courier new,monospace;">> I don't think these should be installed world writeable or anything</span><br style="font-family: courier new,monospace;">
<span style="font-family: courier new,monospace;">> like that as a solution. I think it's reasonable to have people copy</span><br style="font-family: courier new,monospace;"><span style="font-family: courier new,monospace;">> and modify ones if they like, but the way to do that is probably to</span><br style="font-family: courier new,monospace;">
<span style="font-family: courier new,monospace;">> allow overrides, i.e. look in users home directory and use symbols</span><br style="font-family: courier new,monospace;"><span style="font-family: courier new,monospace;">> from there instead of the stock ones if they have the same name.</span><br style="font-family: courier new,monospace;">
<br style="font-family: courier new,monospace;"><span style="font-family: courier new,monospace;">If we separate the libraries to invidual files there is *no need* </span><br style="font-family: courier new,monospace;"><span style="font-family: courier new,monospace;">to copy the whole library to my home directory. I can just add</span><br style="font-family: courier new,monospace;">
<span style="font-family: courier new,monospace;">new device to the appropriate library by creating the device and</span><br style="font-family: courier new,monospace;"><span style="font-family: courier new,monospace;">placing into the appropriate folder.</span><br style="font-family: courier new,monospace;">
<span style="font-family: courier new,monospace;">Example:</span><br style="font-family: courier new,monospace;"><span style="font-family: courier new,monospace;">Goal: I want to create an optoisolator schematic into the device library.</span><br style="font-family: courier new,monospace;">
<span style="font-family: courier new,monospace;">Current method: Copy the device.lib file where i can modify, and add it.</span><br style="font-family: courier new,monospace;"><span style="font-family: courier new,monospace;"> * difficulty: new kicad release may contain new schematics in </span><br style="font-family: courier new,monospace;">
<span style="font-family: courier new,monospace;"> the device library (how to merge?)</span><br style="font-family: courier new,monospace;"><span style="font-family: courier new,monospace;">Proposed method: </span><br style="font-family: courier new,monospace;">
<span style="font-family: courier new,monospace;"> 1. Create a library/device directory.</span><br style="font-family: courier new,monospace;"><span style="font-family: courier new,monospace;"> 2. draw the schematic</span><br style="font-family: courier new,monospace;">
<span style="font-family: courier new,monospace;"> 3. save into library/device/optoisolator.dsch</span><br style="font-family: courier new,monospace;"><span style="font-family: courier new,monospace;"> 4. add the library directory to the project</span><br style="font-family: courier new,monospace;">
<br style="font-family: courier new,monospace;"><br style="font-family:courier new,monospace;"><span style="font-family: courier new,monospace;">>> One schematic/footprint/package one file:</span><br style="font-family: courier new,monospace;">
<span style="font-family: courier new,monospace;">>></span><br style="font-family: courier new,monospace;"><span style="font-family: courier new,monospace;">>> There is no need to collect multiple schematic inside one file. There are</span><br style="font-family: courier new,monospace;">
<span style="font-family: courier new,monospace;">>> dedicated tools for that (an archiver: .zip, .tar.gz), if the size matters.</span><br style="font-family: courier new,monospace;"><br style="font-family: courier new,monospace;">
<span style="font-family: courier new,monospace;">>Yes, please put them in a zip file, or some other such archive. There</span><br style="font-family: courier new,monospace;"><span style="font-family: courier new,monospace;">>is something horribly inefficient about lots small files when one</span><br style="font-family: courier new,monospace;">
<span style="font-family: courier new,monospace;">>large one will do. I agree with your logic though, having separate</span><br style="font-family: courier new,monospace;"><span style="font-family: courier new,monospace;">>files for each symbol. Using an archive seems logical to get the</span><br style="font-family: courier new,monospace;">
<span style="font-family: courier new,monospace;">>advantages of both,just takes a little more effort to implement.</span><br style="font-family: courier new,monospace;"><br style="font-family: courier new,monospace;">
<span style="font-family: courier new,monospace;">I disagree here. Your point about diskusage is not valid when </span><br style="font-family: courier new,monospace;"><span style="font-family: courier new,monospace;">a megabyte diskspace costs next to nothing.</span><br style="font-family: courier new,monospace;">
<span style="font-family: courier new,monospace;">Currently the whole kicad schematic library contains 1111 schematic symbols.</span><br style="font-family: courier new,monospace;"><span style="font-family: courier new,monospace;">(for i in *; do cat $i |grep ^#\ |grep -v ^#$>>tmp.txt; done; </span><br style="font-family: courier new,monospace;">
<span style="font-family: courier new,monospace;"> cat tmp.txt|wc -l)</span><br style="font-family: courier new,monospace;"><span style="font-family: courier new,monospace;"> </span><br style="font-family: courier new,monospace;">
<span style="font-family: courier new,monospace;">My linux kernel which is installed under /usr/src (by the system!) contains</span><br style="font-family: courier new,monospace;"><span style="font-family: courier new,monospace;">63981 files! (cd /usr/src/linux; ls -R -1 |wc -l)</span><br style="font-family: courier new,monospace;">
<br style="font-family: courier new,monospace;"><span style="font-family: courier new,monospace;">My /usr directory contains 234408 files. </span><br style="font-family: courier new,monospace;"><span style="font-family: courier new,monospace;">Should I really care for thousands of files? I dont think so.</span><br style="font-family: courier new,monospace;">
<br style="font-family: courier new,monospace;"><span style="font-family: courier new,monospace;">IF you want to give your project to somebody, inthat case would be handy</span><br style="font-family: courier new,monospace;">
<span style="font-family: courier new,monospace;">an export function which do the following things:</span><br style="font-family: courier new,monospace;"><span style="font-family: courier new,monospace;">* collect all used schematics, footprints, 3d packages into a library </span><br style="font-family: courier new,monospace;">
<span style="font-family: courier new,monospace;"> subdirectory in the project directory</span><br style="font-family: courier new,monospace;"><span style="font-family: courier new,monospace;">* zip the project directory into a .zip file.</span><br style="font-family: courier new,monospace;">
<br style="font-family: courier new,monospace;"><br style="font-family:courier new,monospace;"><br style="font-family: courier new,monospace;"><span style="font-family: courier new,monospace;">>> And while we are it, it would be nice also to use standard URI-s instead of</span><br style="font-family: courier new,monospace;">
<span style="font-family: courier new,monospace;">>> C:\\Document and settings\\Username\\Desktop\\kicad\\library and</span><br style="font-family: courier new,monospace;"><span style="font-family: courier new,monospace;">>> /home/username/Desktop/kicad/library</span><br style="font-family: courier new,monospace;">
<br style="font-family: courier new,monospace;"><span style="font-family: courier new,monospace;">>Nice yeah, but I wouldn't think that important unless you set up your</span><br style="font-family: courier new,monospace;">
<span style="font-family: courier new,monospace;">>systems identicallyso you can move between them with the same path</span><br style="font-family: courier new,monospace;"><span style="font-family: courier new,monospace;">>settings.</span><br style="font-family: courier new,monospace;">
<br style="font-family: courier new,monospace;"><span style="font-family: courier new,monospace;">Could be added multiple library locations, and if kicad does not find one, </span><br style="font-family: courier new,monospace;">
<span style="font-family: courier new,monospace;">also fallback to the other.</span><br style="font-family: courier new,monospace;"><span style="font-family: courier new,monospace;">Or using relative paths...</span><br style="font-family: courier new,monospace;">
<br style="font-family: courier new,monospace;"><span style="font-family: courier new,monospace;">But standard URIs are a step forward.</span><br style="font-family: courier new,monospace;"><span style="font-family: courier new,monospace;"> </span><br style="font-family: courier new,monospace;">
<br style="font-family: courier new,monospace;"><span style="font-family: courier new,monospace;">>Not really. They can be individual for development purposed and zipped</span><br style="font-family: courier new,monospace;">
<span style="font-family: courier new,monospace;">>up at build time, so developers get the full advantage.</span><br style="font-family: courier new,monospace;"><br style="font-family: courier new,monospace;"><span style="font-family: courier new,monospace;">>For users who want to modify a symbol: instead of copying a file to</span><br style="font-family: courier new,monospace;">
<span style="font-family: courier new,monospace;">>their home dir fromthe kicad install dir they unzip a file to their</span><br style="font-family: courier new,monospace;"><span style="font-family: courier new,monospace;">>home dir from the installed kicad library archive. Essentially the</span><br style="font-family: courier new,monospace;">
<span style="font-family: courier new,monospace;">>same thing.</span><br style="font-family: courier new,monospace;"><br style="font-family: courier new,monospace;"><span style="font-family: courier new,monospace;">Why the user would need to copy the whole library into their home </span><br style="font-family: courier new,monospace;">
<span style="font-family: courier new,monospace;">directory in the first place?</span><br style="font-family: courier new,monospace;"><span style="font-family: courier new,monospace;">Just create the appropriate "libraryname" subdirectory and place</span><br style="font-family: courier new,monospace;">
<span style="font-family: courier new,monospace;">ONE file into it (what he had created).</span><br style="font-family: courier new,monospace;"><br style="font-family: courier new,monospace;"><span style="font-family:courier new,monospace;">The current situation is, that you need copy the whole library...</span><br style="font-family: courier new,monospace;">
<br style="font-family: courier new,monospace;"><span style="font-family: courier new,monospace;">AND if he wants to share their work, he could just send that file. </span><br style="font-family: courier new,monospace;"><span style="font-family: courier new,monospace;">It is easy and intuitive.</span><br style="font-family: courier new,monospace;">
<br style="font-family: courier new,monospace;"><br style="font-family:courier new,monospace;"><span style="font-family: courier new,monospace;">>> Separate or combined? We are talking about SEPARATE!</span><br style="font-family: courier new,monospace;">
<br style="font-family: courier new,monospace;"><span style="font-family: courier new,monospace;">>Both are possible, combine the advantages. We are talking about</span><br style="font-family: courier new,monospace;"><span style="font-family: courier new,monospace;">>separating out thesymbols into individual items, which can be easily</span><br style="font-family: courier new,monospace;">
<span style="font-family: courier new,monospace;">>edited or transferred as individual items, collecting those individual</span><br style="font-family: courier new,monospace;"><span style="font-family: courier new,monospace;">>items into an archive doesn't preclude that (different tothe current</span><br style="font-family: courier new,monospace;">
<span style="font-family: courier new,monospace;">>non-separable system).</span><br style="font-family: courier new,monospace;"><br style="font-family: courier new,monospace;"><span style="font-family: courier new,monospace;">>I believe this approach would produce the required advantages, what</span><br style="font-family: courier new,monospace;">
<span style="font-family: courier new,monospace;">>are the disadvantages about a built time zip for the shipped</span><br style="font-family: courier new,monospace;"><span style="font-family: courier new,monospace;">>libraries?</span><br style="font-family: courier new,monospace;">
<br style="font-family: courier new,monospace;"><span style="font-family: courier new,monospace;">When you ship Kicad, it is already zipped. (or tar.gz).</span><br style="font-family: courier new,monospace;"><span style="font-family: courier new,monospace;">Why do you want to zip yet one more time? </span><br style="font-family: courier new,monospace;">
<span style="font-family: courier new,monospace;">(zip the individual library groups (power, device, xilinx, valves, etc), </span><br style="font-family: courier new,monospace;"><span style="font-family: courier new,monospace;">and you zip the whole thing one more time. It does not results smaller </span><br style="font-family: courier new,monospace;">
<span style="font-family: courier new,monospace;">file size. But does hide some important details from the user)</span><br style="font-family: courier new,monospace;"><br style="font-family: courier new,monospace;"><span style="font-family: courier new,monospace;">I think zipping is useful, when the user want to export a project with</span><br style="font-family:courier new,monospace;">
<span style="font-family: courier new,monospace;">all the necessary informations and files, and dont really want to carry </span><br style="font-family: courier new,monospace;"><span style="font-family: courier new,monospace;">what files are needed. Just export it through file->export, and archive/send</span><br style="font-family: courier new,monospace;">
<span style="font-family: courier new,monospace;"> the resulted .zipfile.</span><br style="font-family: courier new,monospace;"><br style="font-family: courier new,monospace;"><span style="font-family: courier new,monospace;">Jonas Diemer wrote:</span><br style="font-family: courier new,monospace;">
<span style="font-family: courier new,monospace;">> How about including all symbols, footprints etc., which are used in a kicad</span><br style="font-family: courier new,monospace;"><span style="font-family: courier new,monospace;">> schematic/pcb in the kicad file itself? This way, you always have the correct</span><br style="font-family: courier new,monospace;">
<span style="font-family: courier new,monospace;">> version of librarycomponents packaged with the document itself. This would</span><br style="font-family: courier new,monospace;"><span style="font-family: courier new,monospace;">> greatly simplify sharing of files and also removes the need of versioning of</span><br style="font-family: courier new,monospace;">
<span style="font-family: courier new,monospace;">> library components.</span><br style="font-family: courier new,monospace;"><br style="font-family: courier new,monospace;"><span style="font-family: courier new,monospace;">As Milan already pointed out, there are some autosave capabilities in kicad.</span><br style="font-family: courier new,monospace;">
<br style="font-family: courier new,monospace;"><span style="font-family: courier new,monospace;">I would like to take the opportunity and discussthe project hierarchies too.;)</span><br style="font-family: courier new,monospace;">
<br style="font-family: courier new,monospace;"><span style="font-family: courier new,monospace;">Currently kicad saves many files into the same directory where the project files</span><br style="font-family: courier new,monospace;">
<span style="font-family: courier new,monospace;">locate cluttering that folder.</span><br style="font-family: courier new,monospace;"><span style="font-family: courier new,monospace;">Following hierarchy makes more sense:</span><br style="font-family: courier new,monospace;">
<span style="font-family: courier new,monospace;">projectname/ </span><brstyle="font-family: courier new,monospace;"><span style="font-family: courier new,monospace;">the directory with the same name (the same as now)</span><br style="font-family: courier new,monospace;">
<br style="font-family: courier new,monospace;"><span style="font-family: courier new,monospace;">projectname/<a href="http://projectname.pro";>projectname.pro</a> (project file)</span><br style="font-family: courier new,monospace;">
<span style="font-family: courier new,monospace;">projectname/projectname.brd (pcb)</span><br style="font-family: courier new,monospace;"><span style="font-family: courier new,monospace;">projectname/projectname.sch (schematic)</span><br style="font-family: courier new,monospace;">
<span style="font-family: courier new,monospace;">projectname/<a href="http://projectname.net";>projectname.net</a> (netlist)</span><br style="font-family: courier new,monospace;"><br style="font-family: courier new,monospace;">
<span style="font-family: courier new,monospace;">But nothing else. All the other file should place in a subdirectory auto, because</span><br style="font-family: courier new,monospace;"><span style="font-family: courier new,monospace;">these files are autogenerated. </span><br style="font-family: courier new,monospace;">
<span style="font-family: courier new,monospace;">projectname/auto/projectname.cmp</span><br style="font-family: courier new,monospace;"><span style="font-family: courier new,monospace;">projectname/auto/projectname.bak</span><br style="font-family: courier new,monospace;">
<span style="font-family: courier new,monospace;">projectname/auto/$savepcb.000</span><br style="font-family: courier new,monospace;"><span style="font-family: courier new,monospace;">projectname/auto/$savepcb.brd</span><br style="font-family: courier new,monospace;">
<br style="font-family: courier new,monospace;"><span style="font-family: courier new,monospace;">And the schematics, footprints and 3dpackages used in the project placed into</span><br style="font-family: courier new,monospace;">
<span style="font-family: courier new,monospace;">a library directory:</span><br style="font-family: courier new,monospace;"><span style="font-family: courier new,monospace;">projectname/library/schematic/</span><br style="font-family: courier new,monospace;">
<span style="font-family: courier new,monospace;">projectname/library/footprint/</span><br style="font-family: courier new,monospace;"><span style="font-family: courier new,monospace;">projectname/library/3dpackage/</span><br style="font-family: courier new,monospace;">
<br style="font-family: courier new,monospace;"><span style="font-family: courier new,monospace;">Now exporting the project is nothing else, just zipping this directory.</span><br style="font-family: courier new,monospace;">
<span style="font-family: courier new,monospace;">Please note that suggestion does not depend of the fileformat changing. </span><br style="font-family: courier new,monospace;"><span style="font-family: courier new,monospace;">It is a simple reorganizing. In the library folder we can put what we save now:</span><br style="font-family: courier new,monospace;">
<span style="font-family: courier new,monospace;">projectname/library/projectname.cache.lib, until the new fileformat take effect.</span><br style="font-family: courier new,monospace;"><br style="font-family: courier new,monospace;">
<br style="font-family: courier new,monospace;"><span style="font-family: courier new,monospace;">Remy: Your dreams are really complicated;) </span><br style="font-family: courier new,monospace;"><span style="font-family: courier new,monospace;">At work I use an electrical designing package:eplan electric. </span><br style="font-family: courier new,monospace;">
<span style="font-family: courier new,monospace;">It is a big useless bloatware. There are many function integrated into it, but none</span><br style="font-family: courier new,monospace;"><span style="font-family: courier new,monospace;">of them all really usable. I can pull many other examplefor this all in one program</span><br style="font-family: courier new,monospace;">
<span style="font-family: courier new,monospace;">solution (openoffice a yet another another example, many function into one program. Or evolution</span><br style="font-family: courier new,monospace;"><span style="font-family: courier new,monospace;">under linux (calendar, email client, taskmanager,etc)</span><br style="font-family: courier new,monospace;">
<br style="font-family: courier new,monospace;"><span style="font-family: courier new,monospace;">I'm more in unix philosophy. Make small usable programs, which handle small jobs but </span><br style="font-family: courier new,monospace;">
<span style="font-family: courier new,monospace;">handles that damn good.So for example I could perfectly imagine a totally independant </span><br style="font-family: courier new,monospace;"><span style="font-family: courier new,monospace;">library browser which are implemented in python and independant from kicad. </span><br style="font-family: courier new,monospace;">
<br style="font-family: courier new,monospace;"><span style="font-family: courier new,monospace;">I could also imagine dedicated websites for whatyou are asking:</span><br style="font-family: courier new,monospace;"><br style="font-family: courier new,monospace;">
<span style="font-family: courier new,monospace;">> If a library manager / editor is to be considered, the following</span><br style="font-family: courier new,monospace;"><span style="font-family: courier new,monospace;">> features can be incorporated (gradually) :</span><br style="font-family: courier new,monospace;">
<span style="font-family: courier new,monospace;">> library browsing, exploring, searching in « official » and in personal</span><br style="font-family: courier new,monospace;"><span style="font-family: courier new,monospace;">> libraries with criterias</span><br style="font-family: courier new,monospace;">
<br style="font-family: courier new,monospace;"><span style="font-family: courier new,monospace;">... where you can search, lists the parts (the parts fileformat is </span><br style="font-family: courier new,monospace;"><span style="font-family: courier new,monospace;">really usefull here), and even make wiki-like so others can contribute, </span><br style="font-family: courier new,monospace;">
<span style="font-family: courier new,monospace;">and turn impossible to doable.</span><br style="font-family: courier new,monospace;"><br style="font-family: courier new,monospace;"><span style="font-family: courier new,monospace;">If you want all imaginable function integrate into one program, you will</span><br style="font-family: courier new,monospace;">
<span style="font-family: courier new,monospace;">1. never finish (or even get close to it)</span><br style="font-family: courier new,monospace;"><span style="font-family: courier new,monospace;">2. you create a big monster, what nobody can manage or understand it.</span><br style="font-family: courier new,monospace;">
<br style="font-family: courier new,monospace;"><span style="font-family: courier new,monospace;">>> « Human unreadable » means that youneed</span><br style="font-family: courier new,monospace;"><span style="font-family: courier new,monospace;">>> another tool to be able to « read » the file..</span><br style="font-family: courier new,monospace;">
<br style="font-family: courier new,monospace;"><span style="font-family: courier new,monospace;">Human readable and managable (I think). So less then (lets say) 200 line.</span><br style="font-family: courier new,monospace;">
<br style="font-family: courier new,monospace;"><span style="font-family: courier new,monospace;">It is important if we want to see 3rd party application to born.</span><br style="font-family: courier new,monospace;"><span style="font-family: courier new,monospace;">So the (independant/new) developers can easily understand and implement </span><br style="font-family: courier new,monospace;">
<span style="font-family: courier new,monospace;">the relevant parts of the fileformat (if required). So im in favor of some</span><br style="font-family: courier new,monospace;"><span style="font-family: courier new,monospace;">xml fileformat. There are ready-made libraries to handle it.</span><br style="font-family: courier new,monospace;">
<br style="font-family: courier new,monospace;"><span style="font-family: courier new,monospace;">Uff, said enough.</span><br style="font-family: courier new,monospace;"><br style="font-family: courier new,monospace;"><span style="font-family: courier new,monospace;">Best regards, </span><br style="font-family: courier new,monospace;">
<span style="font-family: courier new,monospace;"> Khiraly<br><br></span>
------=_Part_3812_16478036.1207262427514--
Follow ups
References
