On Sun 22-Jun-2003 at 01:16:07AM -0500, Eric Wilhelm wrote: > > More of this for anyone that has been missing it: I'm new to this list, so apologies if I'm going to repeat stuff that's been said before.. > I've been crazy busy with work and it looks like I will continue > this way for quite some time now but I think I will be working > toward the database-connected cad system on future projects. What problems are you trying to solve with a database? CAD information doesn't appear to be a good fit; drawings are generally made up of quite complex nested object information - This kind of data is hard to cram into a relational database. A relational database is good for fast searches and random access to data - Neither of which are going to be particularly useful here. > It looks like the networked database would be the way to set this > up in future projects, except for the problem that everything > graphical is so mired in autocad and file-based methodology. I share your frustration with the existing "stuff everything in a big binary file" strategy adopted by AutoCAD; but if you are not careful, you will just end-up recreating this with MySQL (which also stuffs everything in big binary files). Looking from my perspective, CAD data isn't repetitive information like an address-book; a closer analogy is with software source-code, where duplication is a Bad Thing - You wouldn't dream of putting your source into a database would you? > I'm planning to look into openCascade in the near future, but the > first step will be getting the perl wrapper for the dwg toolkit > released. Oo, yes please, I could think of lots of uses for this wrapper. -- Bruno