BMS Sudden Left Turn!

PatArizona

Thank you Brian, for your response

"...you are in the distinct minority...".

DISTINCT MINORITY I think is a gross overstatement...US vs WORLD may be as you stated, but not when you scope the comparison down to membership. And, remember, I didn't suggest changing from metric, but rather to use both.

"...am utilizing and quoting Mr Harrington's work...".

Maybe Mr. Harrington's work isn't the right one to use. Why? Fully one third of my trees are not addressed...and that doesn't include the Rocky Mountain Juniper, the Bristlecone Pine, the California Juniper, the California Redwoods (both). And the previous adds up to only 13 American natives. There are many more.

Then there's the metric system...

One further question...how will we accomodate those species that are not in Harry's Species Guide?

Pat

__________________
BONSAI isn't about surviving in a storm, rather, how to dance in the rain.
THE ONLY WAY: Always remember, and don't ever forget, that whatever you read here is not cast in concrete... the intent of any advice is to help. In no way should you feel that I’m saying that my way is the only way…heaven forbid! I've seen far too much of the "my way or the highway" attitude in bonsai as well as in other areas of life.

Advertisement

Forest Reef

Thought about this some more....It's ok by me if the database quotes Harry Harrington's info as long as I can enter my own take on things for each species plus add ones not in that 'base set'. A separate text box entry for use by the end-user is ok, thus satisfying Brian's need not to change Mr. Harrington's text. The 'base set' does have a lot of good info - it's just too generic to meet the needs for ndividual collections around the world.

My details are going to be different from Pat's and both of us different from someone in the Philippines, etc. - climate/regional care variation on top of which tree species we keep. No one's 'base set database' is going to satisfy everyone. Since Brian has permission to use Harry Harrington's info (by quote), that's a good default start. But - We must have the ability to add our own species/genus entries in order to customize the database we populate with our collection data to plug the inevitable 'holes' where the generic set is not detailed enough or lacks some species we are interested in.

Do you have to define how big the text boxes are? Or is this dynamic? I'll add just a few 'customizing' comments on some (e.g., early spring=early March so I can schedule things on calendar, etc.). Longer comments on others (Attila's detailed birch pruning info....). And real long when I create an entry for a species that doesn't exist in the base set (something like copy Brian's whole example in this thread, then edit to fit my new species' entry). I loath running out of characters....

In case there was ever confusion on this - I never expected Brian (or anyone else) to fill in all the species (or other) info for me. I was planning to fill out those tables myself, specific to my collection, my region, and my care practices (and add new ones as I needed them). Obviously, a lot of that info is common from user to user (Trident maple care doesn't vary all that much). So, having a 'default base set' is a time saver. Just don't let the 'default' squeeze out the utility of the package.

And I still want to be able to sort by species and cultivar/variety....

__________________
Anita

Nature, time, and patience are the three great physicians.

BrianP03103

I was afraid that you would find that offensive, Pat. I should have refrained from saying it. It was unnecessary, as the real reason is that I don't feel it correct for me to change the content of Harry's work. However, once the database is in your custody, you would then be free to change any part of any field in Tree Species (including the records containing content from Harry's Species Guide) any way you saw fit.

Please keep in mind that the data from Species Guide is intended to be a default starting place for content in the Tree Species table, not its entire content. The user adds, changes, or deletes content as he/she desires.

Hope that this helps and clarifies.

Brian

__________________

BrianP03103

I am totally eliminating the separate database in the next release. You're right, it is a disaster. The content of Harry's Species Guide will be contained as default (read starting) data for the Tree Species table.

__________________

BrianP03103

Of course. Add, change, or delete Tree Species table entries as you wish.


Type away. Add as much text as you'd like!

That's why it is being used as a starting place, not the end all and be all.

__________________

BrianP03103

Sure. If the Genus is not represented, add a Tree Genus table record. Then, add a Tree Species table record and select the Genus you just created as the Specie's genus. Done!


Great idea. Now I've got another (related) project to do - come up with a mechanism to export and import information to be exchange between BMS users.

Later.

__________________

BrianP03103

OMG!! You mean that there is another layer of granularity smaller than Species?!?

Something like this, "Oh, I forgot to mention that..." always seems to come along late in every project because one or more users ass|u|me'd that the developer "knew" this, because "everyone knows this, don't they?".

OH, exactly how critical is this need? Is it a show-stopper? Can it wait for Ver 2.x to be included? What would you store there that is different from what will be in the Tree Species table, except the names and description?

GROAN!

__________________

BrianP03103

Yes to all of the above.

__________________

BrianP03103

Actually, these are not text fields, they are memo fields. Text fields are limited to 255 characters, while memo fields can hold up to 65,535 characters. If you run out of characters at that point, you are writing a thesis, not a memo.

I think that you've got the picture, Anita.

__________________