Welcome to the Onshape forum! Ask questions and join in the discussions about everything Onshape.

First time visiting? Here are some places to start:
  1. Looking for a certain topic? Check out the categories filter or use Search (upper right).
  2. Need support? Ask a question to our Community Support category.
  3. Please submit support tickets for bugs but you can request improvements in the Product Feedback category.
  4. Be respectful, on topic and if you see a problem, Flag it.

If you would like to contact our Community Manager personally, feel free to send a private message or an email.

Using copies of Public Documents

michael3424michael3424 Member Posts: 523 ✭✭✭
The gear designer document that someone uploaded and discussed recently looked useful so it seemed a good idea to make a copy for myself.  I'm on the free plan, don't care if anyone else sees my gear mods, so making he copy public seemed logical to me.  That is until I pondered the idea of hundreds or thousands of other users doing the same thing.  Seems to me that the Public space could soon be populated with many sets of replicated documents if others do the same.  Consequently finding files in the Public space could eventually get real messy, if it isn't already.  I haven't spent much time there lately, other than to open a link from a member's post.

What are the communities thoughts on this?  Is it OK to make Public copies willy nilly or is there a better way, other than going Pro.

Comments

  • stevehessstevehess Moderator, Onshape Employees, Developers Posts: 98
    Hi @michael3424
    A very thoughtful message indeed.....  Presently the best workflow is to simply make those documents public as you suggested.  We certainly want to encourage use of public models.  In the not-so-distant-future you will have better ways to filter and find public documents (favorite author, topic, application, etc) which will help you reduce the clutter of the public space.  But for now, copy and reuse of public docs is the way forward.
    Steve Hess \ Onshape Inc.
  • 3dcad3dcad Member, OS Professional, Mentor Posts: 2,443 PRO
    Might be a stupid idea since I have only used very few public docs or space but..

    What if copying public doc to public would actually just make a version&branch with copier's name:
    Gear Designer - main
    Gear Designer - 3dcad

    In some cases it would serve better to have all the versions in same public doc. This should be optional and if user later makes doc private s/he should be able to select which branches to include in private copy.
    //rami
  • brucebartlettbrucebartlett Member, OS Professional, Mentor, User Group Leader Posts: 2,044 PRO
    @3dcad
    +1

    Yes this is absolutely needed. I'd vote for an option for the creator to allow anyone to add branches to their public doc. This would make it much easier to help people from this forum after a document link is posted. It's not hard to copy and a public doc to trouble shoot for someone but a branch seem like a better workflow while also exposing the power of these features to new users. 
    Engineer ı Product Designer ı Onshape Consulting Partner
    Twitter: @onshapetricks  & @babart1977   
  • michael3424michael3424 Member Posts: 523 ✭✭✭
    @stevehess - thanks for confirming my guess.

    @3dcad & @brucebartlett - I see the value in that suggestion but for something that may be commonly used, like the gear generator, couldn't that create an unholy mess, if 500 users add their own branches?  I confess to lack of experience with branching, though.

  • _Ðave__Ðave_ Member, Developers Posts: 712 ✭✭✭✭
    @3dcad although public I would be using that document in my personal project and wouldn't want any alterations to my document.
    For that reason I feel this isn't a good suggestion.

    @brucebartlett your suggestion is fine as a owner option only, Certainly not by default or automatically.
  • stevehessstevehess Moderator, Onshape Employees, Developers Posts: 98

    Remember, anything contained in a version is immutable.   So, in (near) future Onshape, you could insert content from a public model into your design with full confidence that your content will never change. Said another way, a user could create a document containing a part or assy, version that document, and make it public.  You then reuse that part or assy from the public document (actually from the public documents 'version') in your design knowing that any future changes to that public document will not affect you.

    The crowd-source public model where anyone can create a branch is an interesting idea....... :)
    Steve Hess \ Onshape Inc.
  • 3dcad3dcad Member, OS Professional, Mentor Posts: 2,443 PRO
    _Dave_ said:
    @3dcad although public I would be using that document in my personal project and wouldn't want any alterations to my document.
    For that reason I feel this isn't a good suggestion.
    You would own that version and branch and no-one could alter it in any way but you. Document would be like a folder with many users file copies in it. Only thing different to having a fresh copy would be that everybody would see easily how many branches have been made and would be of course able to create a new branch of someone else's workspace.

    Version/branch list would need some update to support thousands of instances but I would still like this better than having thousands of duplicates in public document list.

    @stevehess I had possibility to sneak peak into (near)future recently, I'm really excited!!
    //rami
  • _Ðave__Ðave_ Member, Developers Posts: 712 ✭✭✭✭
    Really, Why would I want all these branches in my personal document, It;s enough trouble sorting my own branches. Not to mention how much of my storage it will take and slow down my performance.
  • 3dcad3dcad Member, OS Professional, Mentor Posts: 2,443 PRO
    Just issues to be sorted out.. or maybe the idea is stupid =)

    Thankfully, we are allowed to just throw ideas in air without any responsibility and it's Onshape's work to pick up the best ones..
    //rami
  • _Ðave__Ðave_ Member, Developers Posts: 712 ✭✭✭✭
    I suppose the simple answer is to just pay the $1200 and I won't have to worry about such issues.
  • ky_baky_ba Member Posts: 6
    edited December 2015
    I think the solution would involve a forking - merging model similar to what git repos use. There is a base part, others can copy it at will, and when they are done with their changes, the original part owner can be notified to merge the changes back in from the copied part. Thus, the original part doesn't get bogged down with hundreds of branches, and many people can contribute.

    Something that needs to go away is the massive amount of public documents with no organization. I don't want to see them unless I search for them. If the ability to merge two parts together was allowed, then the decedent parts could be listed nested under the original part. If a copy were truly desired, than the link to the original part could be broken.

    Unlike source code which can be kilobytes per file, over a documents history care needs to be taken so that the file size grow out of control trying to store all the change history.
  • michael3424michael3424 Member Posts: 523 ✭✭✭
  • _Ðave__Ðave_ Member, Developers Posts: 712 ✭✭✭✭
  • viruviru Member, Developers Posts: 619 ✭✭✭✭
Sign In or Register to comment.