Limit to number of tools in tool table

I vote for this also.

andypugh wrote:

NitroCH3NO2 wrote: Does anyone know the reason behind the limit of 56 tools in the table?

Yes, the tool data is passed around between the different modules in a fixed size structure that only has room for 56 tools.

It's crazy, and I actually did a lot of work to fix it and put the tool data in an SQL database. But it was widely ignored.

it's the andypugh/tooltable branch here: git.linuxcnc.org/gitweb?p=linuxcnc.git;a=heads

I have reached the 56 tools limit on 2 machines, and that is simply annoying :side:

And when this limit was reached, find that the number of tools in the tool table is the problem it's kind of difficult, linuxcnc don´t even starts so the tool table has to be edited manually.

My vote is for a SQL database solution, that permits some flexibility on the future. Some triggers that update automatically the tools offsets if changed on the database should be great.

andypugh wrote:

NitroCH3NO2 wrote: Does anyone know the reason behind the limit of 56 tools in the table?

Yes, the tool data is passed around between the different modules in a fixed size structure that only has room for 56 tools.

It's crazy, and I actually did a lot of work to fix it and put the tool data in an SQL database. But it was widely ignored.

it's the andypugh/tooltable branch here: git.linuxcnc.org/gitweb?p=linuxcnc.git;a=heads

Commit it to master so it can get some testing. People using master expect it to break from time to time.

JT

Andy:

When i get no response such as you did - I take it as a go-ahead.
I announce that i'm going to add it to master unless i hear a good reason not too.
and after that I will commit it to master. once it's in master if there is a real reason not to have it there,
devs will be more forward.

It has happened a few times for me and wasn't negative.
And I vote for your work on tool table too.
and for JA branch

In fact I think we should peel off a 2.8 branch off master now then add JA right away.
It's the only way it will get added any time reasonable.
IMHO

Chris M

NitroCH3NO2 wrote: I vote for this also.

It's all very well voting for it, but I am not sure that it works properly, as it is just a proof of concept.
The version there uses a database structure that is nowhere near as flexible as it could be. I really think that the database should look like this:
wiki.linuxcnc.org/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?ToolDatabase
But _look_ like the current one from the point of view of the tool editor.
(which needs to be changed to work with a database).

for what I see, that concept it's not intended to use with lathes... please don't forget about lathes.