kicad-developers team mailing list archive

[Dick Hollenbeck <dick@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 04/12/2013 12:28 AM, Lorenzo Marcantonio wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 04:11:51PM -0500, Dick Hollenbeck wrote:
> 
>> No, I don't agree, since it is behind an interface and only accessors use it.
> 
> My question could be rephrased as: there is a need to put colours in the board
> interface?
> 
>> Its the guy in the stair well walking on his hands, allowed to do weird stuff as long as
>> it is not public.
> 
> Sorry but I don't get this...
> 
>> Because we are talking about supporting more than one board in the editor *concurrently*
>> in the foreseeable future, we have to be careful about what is done here on improving the
>> color "interface".
> 
> Then by design it's correct to have it as a board member; I completely
> agree (see also my other post).
> 
> The original question was about the design, to decide if that
> implementation should be kept or not; with this design the
> implementation io OK.
> 
> BTW why simply don't have two pcbnew instances with different boards
> loaded? once you fix the clipboard and crossprobing code I think it
> should be enough.


The plans are to move to a single process model, where pcbnew is a DLL/DSO and it will be
utlilized to hold more than one BOARD concurrently.

This means anything BOARD specific will need to go in or be associated with a BOARD.
Globals can remain globals, with an understanding that something global then pertains to
more than one BOARD concurrently.