Re: GNU Enterprise

[Rodrigo Moya <rodrigo linuxave net>]

Derek Neighbors wrote:
> 
> Rodrigo,
> 
> I will speak as an outsider looking in. :)  Mind you I am VERY much a FREE
> software advocate. :)
> 
> On Sat, 8 Jul 2000, Rodrigo Moya wrote:
> > Apart from the widgets, all the bonobo part will be GNOME-dependant (of
> > course, until bonobo is somewhat ported to other toolkits). And,
> > although the bonobo part is quite small today, it will be extended
> > everywhere, since we must make gnome-db fully compatible with all the
> > gnome-office applications.
> 
> Speaking as a core developer of GNUe (whom hasnt fully investigated
> gnome-db).  My two big questions remain as how long until you will be X
> server and gtk independent?  and are you committed to accepting changes
> that are maybe not in your current scope?
> 
We are now woking on making a new release, and then, for the next one,
OAF could be on the TODO list. It is not a big deal the change from
GNORBA to OAF (at least for GNOME-DB), but the problem you'll have is
that OAF has not been officially released yet, and is not exepcted to do
so in a near future (until GNOME 2.0 is out, which will be at the end of
this year or the beginning of the next one).

And yes, we are committed to accepting changes.

> We really dont want to author our own data layer, but we can not be X or
> GTK dependent.  While we love gnome and advocate it as much as possible
> some of our clients arent ready for it yet. :)
> 
> > Oops! I don't know if I like too much the idea, we'll see when this
> > happens. But I like gnome-db to be as it is today, the GNOME offical
> > database access famework, included in gnome-office, etc. But what other
> > people think about this?
> 
> I will just state at least 10 people on our team looked into gnome-db at a
> glance.  All 10 instantly at looking at things said it wont work its a
> gnome thing. :)  While you will get lots of fanfare from the "gnome"
> seekers you turn a lot of people away in  giving the auroa of obeing
> dependent on gnome. While I loathe Qt and KDE wouldnt it be nice if you
> could offer something they could use as well?  So you dont end up with
> another gnome vs. kde only on the database front?  I think bonobo has
> already started to move in this united direction.  So I guess Gnome-db is
> a great name, but might give a bad impression unless you want the stigma
> of being tied to gnome.  :)
> 
what about this, which will not suppose a big change: the basic
libraries are called libgda-*, so we could create a set of basic
packages called, for example libgda (GDA right now stands for GNOME Data
Access, but could be changed to GNU Database Access), which will contain
all libraries not being GNOME-dependant. In fact this is one of the
things initially made for the debian packages.
Then, gnome-db will be the GNOME part using this libgda layer. And then,
a KDE-db (or whatever-db) could be coded.

Cheers