kicad-developers team mailing list archive

[Jon Evans <jon@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I agree with Simon.  I have plans to propose something like this in the
future (i.e. an integrated part library that manages symbols/footprints/etc
together) and it would be best to reserve the term "component" for this
future use, since in my experience that's what "component" means in the big
tools (I have not used Altium, but it is more of a "medium" tool than a
"big" tool FWIW)

I don't have time to detail my proposal now, but basically I think a
"component" should map to one or more footprints, one or more symbols, one
or more vendor part numbers, one or more 3D models, etc.

-Jon

On Thu, Mar 23, 2017 at 8:33 AM, Simon Wells <swel024@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> one of the things that irks me about component is even though its
> meant to only be schematic being component libs a lot of the questions
> asked in irc will state component when they use that as either a
> generic term for symbols AND footprints or sometimes footprints only,
> as to some i guess thats still part of a "component definition".
>
> If at some point down the line we did introduce some sort of package
> that was symbol/footprint/model/spice/....... i think that would be a
> much better thing to call a component.
>
> On 24 March 2017 at 02:30, Chris Pavlina <pavlina.chris@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > Ah, interesting. This is a ... fiddly distinction, I don't like it. This
> > is one case where I think we really should _not_ follow.
> >
> > I'm still not flipping from component back to symbol myself though -
> > this is just Altium. The rest of them still mostly use "component",
> > right?
> >
> > On Thu, Mar 23, 2017 at 09:19:45AM -0400, Wayne Stambaugh wrote:
> >> Here is the Altium library documentation:
> >>
> >> http://www.altium.com/documentation/17.0/display/
> ADES/((More+about+Components+and+Libraries))_AD
> >>
> >> Interestingly the terms component, part, symbol, model, and footprint
> >> are all mentioned.
> >>
> >> It appears that the folks at Altium have answered the is it a symbol or
> >> component question:
> >>
> >> http://www.altium.com/documentation/17.0/display/
> ADES/((Understanding+Models,+Components+and+Libraries))_AD#!
> UnderstandingModelsComponentsandLibraries-IsitaSymboloraComponent
> >>
> >> I was looking at the top level documentation where I saw the term
> >> component.  Maybe symbol would be an acceptable term.  In our case it
> >> certainly would be more accurate.  The only real difference is in the
> >> level of detail added to the the schematic symbol that determines the
> >> symbol/component difference and it's pretty grey definition at best.  I
> >> retract my original statement and go with my preference of symbol.
> >>
> >> On 3/23/2017 9:05 AM, Chris Pavlina wrote:
> >> > Many of them actually don't have that notion. Surprisingly enough,
> >> > Altium of all things has a system that is remarkably similar to our
> own,
> >> > just with a different library management discipline applied in their
> >> > standard library.
> >> >
> >> > On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 01:50:08AM +1300, Simon Wells wrote:
> >> >> Do most of the other EDA packages not refer to a component as
> >> >> something that combines a symbol AND a footprint though?
> >> >>
> >> >> On 24 March 2017 at 01:34, Wayne Stambaugh <stambaughw@xxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
> >> >>> I'm going to weigh in on this because this has been on my radar
> with the
> >> >>> symbol library table work I've been doing.  I do agree that we need
> to
> >> >>> pick one term and use it consistently.  My preference is the term
> symbol
> >> >>> because in my mind this is a component[1] and this is symbolic
> >> >>> representation[2] of a component ergo symbol.  However, I spent some
> >> >>> time this week checking out the documentation for all of the major
> and
> >> >>> quite a few minor EDA applications and they *all* use the term
> component
> >> >>> when talking about libraries.  This makes me think that for the
> sake of
> >> >>> uniformity with other EDA applications, we should use the term
> >> >>> component.  While I'm not a proponent of doing something just
> because
> >> >>> that's what everyone else is doing, in this case using the term
> >> >>> component may make users coming from other EDA apps a bit more
> >> >>> comfortable.  Personally, I'm comfortable with either term but
> maybe we
> >> >>> should not stray to far from the norm here.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> [1]:
> >> >>> http://www.digikey.com/product-detail/en/stackpole-
> electronics-inc/CF14JT10K0/CF14JT10K0TR-ND/1741265
> >> >>> [2]: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Resistor_symbol_
> America.svg
> >> >>>
> >> >>> On 3/23/2017 7:52 AM, Thor-Arne Hovland wrote:
> >> >>>> Symbol has been used as long as I can remember.
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> The proper names should probably be defined to avoid confusion.
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> In my book:
> >> >>>> A "symbol" is a generic repesentation for drawing a schematic,
> >> >>>> and that is whats used in eeschema right now.
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> A "footprint" is the pads and silkscreen ++ used in pcbnew.
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> A "housing" is the physical package i.e. the 3D model.
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> The current way of doing things is a bit confusing and causes
> >> >>>> many "symbols" to be reused in the library.
> >> >>>> This is not effective when someting is to be changed.
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> It could be a good idea to introduce a "part" that stores all the
> needed
> >> >>>> information like symbol, footprint, pin connections between symbol
> and
> >> >>>> footprint,
> >> >>>> 3D modell, documentation.
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> This might be more intuitive for new user who I see repeatedly
> trying to
> >> >>>> match a symbol
> >> >>>> with pins "G-S-D" to a footprint with pins "1-2-3".
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> Just my 2 cent....
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> -----Original Message----- From: Chris Pavlina
> >> >>>> Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2017 3:30 AM
> >> >>>> To: Simon Wells
> >> >>>> Cc: KiCad Developers
> >> >>>> Subject: Re: [Kicad-developers] UI improvements
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> Are we calling them "symbols" now? Internally they are called with
> >> >>>> "components" or "parts" depending on whether they are on a
> schematic...
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> On Thu, Mar 23, 2017 at 03:25:03PM +1300, Simon Wells wrote:
> >> >>>>> just a slight segue.... is it not better to refer to symbols
> rather
> >> >>>>> than components? as with the footprints being seperated from the
> >> >>>>> symbols i don't see the justification for calling it a component
> (will
> >> >>>>> also require renaming other stuff)
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> On 23 March 2017 at 12:12, Chris Pavlina <pavlina.chris@xxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
> >> >>>>>> On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 11:53:40PM +0100, Clemens Koller wrote:
> >> >>>>>>> Hello, Fabrizio!
> >> >>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>> The horizontal + vertical justify radio buttons could possibly
> be
> >> >>>>>>> improved by showing the alignment visually as it's done in [1]
> by
> >> >>>>> using >> a 3 x 3 radio button matrix. It can also reduce the
> number of
> >> >>>>> clicks to >> 1 to adjust hor + vert simultaneously.
> >> >>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>> The timestamp is not human readable. It seems strange to me to
> dump
> >> >>>>> it >> as hex-number on the UI. (WTF!?)
> >> >>>>>>
> >> >>>>>> I'm struggling to think of a use for this. Maybe for power
> users, to
> >> >>>>>> jump quickly to the component in the raw sch file by searching
> for it -
> >> >>>>>> but why not just search for the reference?
> >> >>>>>>
> >> >>>>>> I wonder how many people would complain if I took that out.
> >> >>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>> The Component/Chip Name thingy seems to be lost a bit on the
> lower
> >> >>>>>>> left. Maybe some sorting of the elements based on the
> usage/setup
> >> >>>>>>> procedure as well as logic dependency could do some good.
> >> >>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>> Regards,
> >> >>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>> Clemens
> >> >>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>> [1] https://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/File:WG9-9.png
> >> >>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>> On 2017-03-22 10:32, Fabrizio Tappero wrote:
> >> >>>>>>>> hi guys,
> >> >>>>>>>> I am looking at some new icons that were introduced in kicad by
> >> >>>>> the >> > people who made the related functionalities and at the
> user
> >> >>>>>>>> experience in general. If any of you guys has any feedback
> about
> >> >>>>>>>> possible (aesthetic) UI improvements I would love to know.
> >> >>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>> Specifically I am looking at this menu.
> >> >>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>> Inline image 1
> >> >>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>> the section "Chip Name" is a part that I use a lot and I find a
> >> >>>>>>>> little "mysterious". Before going further with a possible patch
> >> >>>>> to >> > improve a little the usability of it I would like to know
> if
> >> >>>>> there is >> > any of you interesting in giving an opinion. I would
> >> >>>>> love to know >> > from the person who made it what exactly is the
> Chip
> >> >>>>> Name section >> > for. I feel it is not so evident to the user.
> >> >>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>> cheers
> >> >>>>>>>> Fabrizio
> >> >>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
> >> >>>>>>>> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers
> >> >>>>>>>> Post to     : kicad-developers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >> >>>>>>>> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers
> >> >>>>>>>> More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
> >> >>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>> _______________________________________________
> >> >>>>>>> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers
> >> >>>>>>> Post to     : kicad-developers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >> >>>>>>> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers
> >> >>>>>>> More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
> >> >>>>>>
> >> >>>>>> _______________________________________________
> >> >>>>>> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers
> >> >>>>>> Post to     : kicad-developers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >> >>>>>> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers
> >> >>>>>> More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> _______________________________________________
> >> >>>> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers
> >> >>>> Post to     : kicad-developers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >> >>>> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers
> >> >>>> More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> _______________________________________________
> >> >>>> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers
> >> >>>> Post to     : kicad-developers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >> >>>> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers
> >> >>>> More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
> >> >>>
> >> >>> _______________________________________________
> >> >>> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers
> >> >>> Post to     : kicad-developers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >> >>> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers
> >> >>> More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
> >> >>
> >> >> _______________________________________________
> >> >> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers
> >> >> Post to     : kicad-developers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >> >> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers
> >> >> More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
>
> _______________________________________________
> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers
> Post to     : kicad-developers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers
> More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
>