Re: gEDA-dev: New diagram (attempt at UML)

[John Griessen <john-at-NOSPAMecosensory_dot_com>]

Dan McMahill wrote:

>  I disagree that it makes hierarchy hard.  I don't think you need 
> source= either, why not just look for a .sch with the same name as the 
> .sym in the same directory?  I also don't see why you need a seperate 
> file for the same reason.

[jg]I agree.  A directory structure is quick to browse, known to all, and
it lets you reuse chunks easily.

The discussion of a single file that contains a hierarchic design is probably only
a workable goal as a bundle and compress step -- which could be done as a script,
and added as an extension to
gschem/gnetlist  for a specialized customer like Alex that wants loop diagrams
and cable diagrams and one file per project as his preferred view...  The mechanics
of operating gschem will just be separate from that script, and for him, would need a startup
script that hides hierarchy subdirs in yet another subdir also.



> 
> I'll point out that the cadence IC tools which clearly deal with large 
> hierarchies basically work this way.  Cadence libraries are organized by 
> a directory structure like this:
> 
> library/
>   cell1/
>     view1/
>     view2/
>     ...
>   cell2/
> ...
> 
> 
> where a view is something like a symbol, schematic, verilog-a, etc.  The 
> actual data files are stored then in the cellview subdirectories.
> 

> I really think embedding much more than this into the design becomes 
> really clumsly really quickly.


Cadence's method of storing all views in a module directory is a model that works.
It's well tested.  It's fairly simple.  Reuse of a module is simple.

That's a good case for it.

John Griessen


_______________________________________________
geda-dev mailing list
geda-dev@moria.seul.org
http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-dev