Re: Proposed changes in libgda

[Rodrigo Moya <rodrigo linuxave net>]

> > 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).
> 
ok, I'll start cleaning up as soon as I finish a couple of things.

> 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.
> 
I've now changed the IDL files from gda* to GDA* (it wasn't too difficult but
it is very useful). I've made a compilation on my machine and everything was
ok, but if you find any problems, the only thing to do is to change the
#include <gda.h> to GDA.h (specially in some providers, which I haven't
compiled with the change).

cheers