Steve writes:

> Excellent point. This is why HP needs to "get their act together",
> literally, with respect to the TurboIMAGE database "package". Or, rather,
> the loose-collection-of-sometimes-related-files that is not, but should
> be, a "package". As has been suggested before, a TurboIMAGE database
> should be a self-consistent and self-describing entity that provides
> built-in consistency support. Things like
> 1) Something-probably the root file-should provide a complete and
> consistent presentation of *everything* that makes up a given database.
> This would include the files containing the various data sets, files for

Hmm...sounds remarkably like my enhancement suggestion from about 6 or 7
years ago (or longer?  At the SIGIMAGE in Reno, which was Jim Sartain's
first as IMAGE manager).

The enhancement, along with many more of mine, has been on the
SIGIMAGE ballot for years ... but doesn't get enough votes to
be in the top 10.  I seem to recall it's listed as "tool vendor memory
area" or some such.

So now you know the secret...vote for my enhancement requests when
I first propose them!  You'll be glad you did, in the long run!  :)

--
Stan Sieler                                          [log in to unmask]
                                     http://www.allegro.com/sieler.html