Hello
What is the size limit of the character string in the organization of files in EPDM?
EX:
Y:\ EPDM\A. General\C. Screws & Hardware\V. Machine Parts\002. Rotational guidance\002. Plain bearings\Flange plain bearing Ø28xØ22x16
Here 151 characters. Can the PDM manage such chains? If not, what is the maximum?
Thanks in advance
Basically, on Windows, the limit is, all characters included, 255 characters.
I don't know if PDM does better.
Hello
The character limit in EPDM is the same as for Windows, i.e. 260 characters. Although on Windows, apparently, you can now bypass this number, I don't think it's possible under EPDM, or even https://www.developpez.com/actu/99242/Windows-10-Microsoft-met-silencieusement-fin-a-la-limitation-a-260-caracteres-pour-les-chemins-d-acces-dans-la-Build-14352-en-preversion/.
So, yes, EPDM can handle 151 characters.
This number of 260 characters is generally more than sufficient for the classification of documents, especially if we consider that EPDM is above all a database that makes it easy to find all the documents stored there, provided that the variables used as search criteria are judiciously defined. In the example given for the folder name, I would tend to delete floors and put dictionaries, predefined and editable only by an administrator, in data maps such as:
dico 1 : Rotation guidance / Translation guidance / ...
dico 2 : Plain bearings / Bearings / ... => this dictionary being a sub-dictionary of Rotation guidance
dico 3 : Cylindrical / flanged / ... => this dictionary being a sub-dictionary of plain bearings
plus 1 free input field: Ø28xØ22x16
The full designation can be in a field calculated from certain levels of the dictionaries, here: Plain bearings with flanges Ø28xØ22x16, a value that can be shown in the nomenclatures.
Kind regards
I do not agree on this point,
Having EPDM to manage project files is one thing.
Having a 3D Library that "matches" users is very important.
(classic folder library method: Brand-Maker, or generic elements in folders named accordingly)
Having a forced design office because of EPDM to have to do perpetual research for a library is a "MISTAKE" and above all a colossal waste of time for the year, not negligible, it is unacceptable for a design office...
A computer system, or software, must not impose on users "an operation that does not correspond to their needs" (in this case, the CAD library).
So to stop preconceived ideas:
having an EPDM should not force users to work with the CAD library by doing perpetual searches...
The loss of time that this represents throughout the year is colossal...
And as a reminder, the Solidworks philosophy of a library is used with the right-hand panel "Design Library"
For the problem of the files,
When you can't create as many levels as you want, you have to merge level 1 and 2, for example, and use abstracts.
The advantage of EPDM is that you can (if everything is archived) rename folders for abstracts.
Y:\ EPDM\A. General\C. Screws & Hardware\V. Machine Parts\002. Rotational guidance\002. Plain bearings\Flange plain bearing Ø28xØ22x16
Y:\ EPDM\A. General\C. Hardware Screws .\V. Machine Elements \002. Guid. Rotation\002. Plain bearings\Flange plain bearing Ø28xØ22x16
Hello
So the answer to the question is: yes, EPDM can handle 151 characters.
As I understand it, the rest is just a difference of opinion between those who prefer to use EPDM as a database and those who prefer to use EPDM as a Windows Explorer.
As for the remark " Having a forced design office because of EPDM to have to do perpetual research for the library is a "MISTAKE" and above all a colossal waste of time per year, not negligible, it is unacceptable for a design office... ", this can be discussed, without getting angry, and what is unacceptable for one BE can be unacceptable for another depending on the number of files to be managed and the internal organization of each company...
Kind regards
Sorry to have been "dry" in the answer,
For EPDM, you just have to differentiate between how to manage project files, and a CAD library.
You don't have to use the same method for both, quite the contrary.
But having seen and practiced both methods, the loss of time is far too great for a BE...
When I see that with "EPDM we are obliged to have a library that will only work through research" : this is false.
It is the dealers who propose (impose) this operation, because it makes it easier for them to "set up".
But they didn't take into account the user aspect, and the loss of time that this entails.
@ olivier42, when you write " We are not obliged to use the same method for both, quite the contrary ", I completely agree with you and I did not write that we are obliged to have a library that only works through research, It also depends on what you put behind the word library. And yes, going through research can take a little longer for the design office but, depending on the overall functioning of the company, is it really a waste of time for it because after the design office comes the Methods Office, the Purchasing department, Production, etc... and then from time to time EPDM communicates with an ERP... For me, this must involve a global reflection and not just the BE user aspect.
I have also seen and practiced both methods and for having had to deduplicate and clean thousands of files stored in Windows explorer type classification well I prefer to use a database even with the few constraints that this entails...
Kind regards
Precisely, having practiced both methods, I much prefer the one compatible with the solidworks panel.
This does not bother the other services in any way, their research/work remains completely compatible.
On the other hand, the year-round research time for a design office has a monumental cost!
the "classic SW" method allows you to work instantaneously (compatible with config libraries!!)
The "search" method wastes several minutes per day, hour per week, etc... (because in addition sometimes you have to search with different keywords, space, comma, period, etc...) Because yes even the "research" method can be totally poluted.
After a clean library, it can be managed, and those who "polish" it do not have access to it, or with external validation.
So a clean "classic SW" library can stay that way without any problem.
I've been working like this for years, the gain is fabulous (constraints cars and companies...)
I went back to a design office with the "research" method, I immediately saw the slowness add to my projects. I really feel like I'm working with a stone age, archaic method, which dates back 15/20 years...
Not to mention that the "search" method includes repetitive tasks to use in 3D. Whereas with the "classic SW" method they disappear.
Yes so we are of course not of course a difference of point of view between a database type classification and a Windows explorer type classification, both solutions have their advantages and disadvantages, these surely depend a lot on the operation and internal procedures of each company.
What is certain is that it must be well thought out from the beginning in order to ensure optimal operation minimizing the risk of error, such as:
- for the type search method, clearly define the dictionaries (keywords) allowing to fill in the complete name of the file (no risk of spelling mistakes or characters such as spaces or commas since they are dictionaries).
- for the explorer type method, make sure that each person who creates an item in the library respects the habits of naming the new file and above all stores it in the folder in which it should be otherwise!!!!!!
- In both cases, clearly define what a library element is and what is not.
In the example given (Collar plain bearing Ø28xØ22x16) and in the company where I work, it is not a library element because it is a commercial element with an internal code related to an article contained in our ERP and lost in the middle of about 5 to 6000 elements, so files, of the same type. I can't even imagine the number of files it would take to file them all. The explorer-type search would take a lot of time and would inexorably lead to the creation of a duplicate and therefore to a considerable loss of time for other departments (methods, purchases, stores, etc.), not to mention the financial loss for the company that a duplicate item can represent (stock management, etc.).
The only good method is the one that best fits into the overall functioning of the company, whether this operation is archaic or not.
Precisely the "Classic SW (folder)" method allows:
Allows users to work instantly while designing.
To use the right panel.
To use (or not) parts in config (while having a system under EPDM)!!
And to always be able to do "Searches" if you need to (if you want to work in "Search" mode)
(but hey, it's better not to continue this discussion, which is far from the subject, we may have the opportunity to debate it on topics dedicated to this)
"May the dark side be with you... "
Hello
Thank you for your answers and for this debate, which is very interesting.
Your two methodologies are interesting and I will rely on your advice to develop the one that will be most suitable for my design office.
Thank you again and best wishes for this year 2018
Hello
Glad to have been able to help you, on the other hand I don't see the answer to your question in the best answer chosen which does not make the search easier for those who might ask the same question.
Kind regards