[PD] puredatabase

[IOhannes m zmoelnig]

Steffen wrote:

>>> I guess a list of object and there relation can be fetched by parsing
>>> the code in CVS. The metadata could provide some description but not per
>>> object except for the cases where an external only have one object (or
>>
>> this i don't understand.
> 
> I thought that the description was per object, hence not per group of
> externals. Fx. the metadata for zexy says "swiss army knife for pd". I
> can't just find one, but there could well be a group of  externals with
> only one object, in which case the description of the group of externals
> would be the same as the for the that one object. So i most cases manual
> editing of descriptions would be needed especially if the description is
> to be per object.


hmm, i think i understand.
the pdb should hold both accurate descriptions of objects and generic
descriptions of libraries (if there is a library at all)
appearently "swiss army kife for pd" doesn't tell you anything about
[z~], which is probably what you are looking for.

> 
>> apart from that:
>> personally i am not convinced that the database should be created on the
>> fly from CVS for various reasons:
>> - code would have to follow a certain outline in order to make this work
> 
> Ok. I thought that such outline was already established by m_pd.h or
> "the way" to write externals.

no, this won't help you.
there is no point in documenting that the object understands "open
<symbol>" messages, if you don't know what the object does.
i always thought that pdb is not a help-patch replacement but a place to
find an object that does certain things (like: being written by somebody
;-))


> 
>> - separation between code and documentation is rather low (coders
>> usually hate to documentate their stuff; so a host of volunteers is
>> needed to do the documentation; they don't necessarily need to interfere
>> with the source-code for this task)
>> - accuracy tends to be low with automated systems
>>
>>
>> so i think that the database ought to be manually maintained.
> 
> Ok. I was just suggesting what i thought would be the easiest way to
> keep the database accuracy high, since, as you say, coders don't
> necessarily do the docs - or just might not see the use for a database.
> That's all.

i think we don't disagree here. i think most things i said are implicit
in your original email.
(i said: "use CVS to initially populate the db, but the real work is in
maintaining the db manually")


mftgad
IOhannes