Results 1 to 5 of 5

Thread: When is Compiling needed and when not?

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    186

    Default When is Compiling needed and when not?

    Hi all,
    I am a bit confused about when Database Compile is needed and when it is not.
    New files, like the SBL-greek and the Lexham Bible, seem not to need it while others do.

    Has BW come up with a way of avoiding this step? Or what is the logic?

    Morten

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    2,081

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MortenJensen View Post
    Hi all,
    I am a bit confused about when Database Compile is needed and when it is not.
    New files, like the SBL-greek and the Lexham Bible, seem not to need it while others do.

    Has BW come up with a way of avoiding this step? Or what is the logic?

    Morten
    Technically this belongs in the user-created databases forum.

    The short answer is that there is no logic. When we were first creating the user files we predominantly zipped up the text files which needed to be compiled. Over the years we've mostly shifted to simply zipping the files that are already compiled. From my perspective there wasn't a lot of rhyme or reason to our method, but obviously when we zip the compiled versions, that does cut out a step for the users.

    You can usually tell from the file extensions what you're supposed to do with the files. If the files zipped are text files, you need to run the Version Database Compiler. If you see a lot of other file extensions (e.g. .dbu .dbx, etc.) then you have a compiled file and you simply put it in the \databases\ folder and restart BW.
    Michael Hanel
    PhD candidate Classics Univ. of Cincinnati
    MDiv Concordia Seminary
    MA Classics Washington University
    Unofficial BibleWorks Blog
    LibraryThing!

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    611

    Default

    I think Michael hit the nail on the head. When items were first starting to be put together for the VDC and put on the BibleWorks Blog, we weren't completely clear on how to distribute the files. Other than the occasional update of a file or new file crunched for the VDC, we have not done much to standardize what is available on the blog.

    I have mixed feelings about it nowadays... On the one hand, I like the idea of providing the source files for all to use, mash up, and integrate into other programs if they can. On the other hand, 'compiling' can be an intimidating step.

    Ideally, in the future - when I'm finished with my current educational endeavors - I hope to overhaul the "Unoffical BW Blog" in a significant way. If and when that happens, I hope to include both the compiled files (including .bww files with bibliographic information) as well as the source files for users to download as they see fit.

    In the meantime, as Michael mentioned, if you see files with dbu, dbx, you would copy them to your databases folder and restart BW. If you see files with txt and ddf extensions, you would put them in your userdb folder and use the VDC to compile them. You will likely have to re-configure the file paths in the VDC, and if there is a bww file, you want to copy that to the databases folder. So that it shows up in the Analysis Window at the appropriate time.
    Last edited by jdarlack; 02-03-2013 at 01:22 PM. Reason: clarification
    Jim Darlack - Reference Librarian at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary
    Gloucester Assembly of God | Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary
    The 'Unofficial' BibleWorks Blog | Old in the New | Facebook | LibraryThing

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    186

    Default

    Great, thanks to both of you!
    Morten

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    898

    Default

    I am one who has always preferred to compile versions on my own, and so all the versions I have made available are uncompiled. My biggest reason for this is that (before BW9) when you added an already-compiled version, the version order always went back to the default alphabetical order. So, if a user had customized his version order, he would either have to re-do the whole order (hours of work) or (if he had had to do this more than once before) he could have saved his version order in a separate file, then had to add it back into the bw....ini file (remembering to add the newly-added version to the list), and then restart BW, hoping he had not made a mistake. On the other hand, when a user compiles a version himself, the version order stays the same, and BW adds the newly compiled version as the last in the list.
    BW9 seems to handle this better, if I remember correctly. At least when new versions come directly from BW, they do not mess up a user's version order. The new versions are added at the end (as if the user had compiled them himself). I have not tried adding an already-compiled user version (since I think I already have them all). So I do not know if in BW9 this process would still mess up the version order. But that was my biggest reason for not providing compiled versions to the BibleWorks unofficial blog.
    Mark Eddy

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •