Re: Proposed changes in libgda

[Reinhard Müller <reinhard mueller bitsmart com>]

Am Son, 05 Nov 2000 01:22:01 schrieb(en) Rodrigo Moya:
> the report engine IS a libgda client, but the report client part IS NOT,
> since
> it just communicates with the report engine, and it needs both CORBA/OAF
> stuff (gda_init) and configuration stuff (gda-config). What could be
> moved to libgda-client is the Gda_Provider and Gda_Dsn stuff, leaving
> then
> the gda_config_ functions. If you think this is useful, just go on, I
> don't care too much about this.

Ah, you are right! I still have to learn that gda consists of more than
the providers and the library :)

> > > > * the names of the macros for the objects could be standardized
> (e.g.
> > > there
> > > > are now GDA_IS_XML_FILE, but IS_GDA_THREAD
> > > >
> > > yes, this is something I've been forgetting systematically. It would
> be
> > > great
> > > to provide a shell script which makes the change, so that client apps
> > > just have to run it to conform with the new names.
> > 
> > It seems to me that more macros are missing than spelled wrong; and the
> > only wrong-spelled macro names I found are in gda-xml-*, which is not
> > used by client apps yet I suppose.
> >
> the only one I can think of is gda-xml-database.[ch] which is used by the
> GnomeDbDesigner widget

Ok, so no such script will be necessary probably. We can add it later,
if we find out that we need it.

> > > > * what would you think about a private header file in each
> directory
> > > > (like common.h, defines.h or gda-clientP.h etc.) in which we
> include
> > > > the things that are now included in all .c files (config.h, the NLS
> > > > stuff...)? We would _not_ install that header, and it would be only
> > > > included in our .c files, not in any other headers.
> > > >
> > > yes
> > 
> > So what name for this private global header file would you prefer? Is
> > there any standard for this yet? (I didn't find anything)
> >
> no, there's not any standard, so just call it gda-xxx-private.h, for
> instance

I would wonder what the rest of the lists thinks about a good filename.

> yes, the Gda_Recordset object needs a clean up. We'll have to look at it
> to see how to make it more usable. And also to remove several IDL methods
> which are not very useful and are not implemented.

I agree 100% with you here (and that IDL cleanup is not restricted to
the recordset). But I would like to leave that up to you, as you know
better what you are planning to do sometime, and what will probably
never be done (in this form).

Apart from that, I found it a good idea to name the GDA_Report.idl
with capital letters, and I found out that other project do this as
well (GConf for example). I am asking myself if it would be worth
the trouble to change gda.idl to GDA.idl - especially gda.h (which
is generated from gda.idl) could be dangerous because people could be
tempted to include gda.h in their programs instead of gda-client.h.
But again, I doubt that it's worth even discussing it.

--
Reinhard Müller
BYTEWISE Software GmbH
reinhard mueller bytewise at
www.bytewise.at