Re: [gnome-db] getting mergeant to 1.0

[Rodrigo Moya <rodrigo gnome-db org>]

On Thu, 2003-09-18 at 15:06, malerba gnome-db org wrote:
> > On Thu, 2003-09-18 at 09:41, malerba gnome-db org wrote:
> >> The intent of libmergeant is to move as much possible functionnalities
> >> out
> >> of mergeant so that other programs can be built with libmergeant. For
> >> example I've built a small program with 10 forms in about 400 lines of
> >> code (and most of that is for menus, etc).
> >>
> > ok, cool! Although, without having seen the code, of course, I wonder if
> > it's a bit redundant to have libmergeant and libgnomedb. Since apps will
> > use libgnomedb, what do we win in having yet-another-library?
> >
> > I think, if we agree on having the cache in ~/.mergeant, that we can
> > have that functionality in libgnomedb. We could have a specialized
> > class, called GnomeDbDictionary (or whatever), and thus avoid a new
> > library to be used by apps.
> >
> > What do you think?
> 
> I see Libmergeant as a library sitting on top of both Libgda and
> Libgnomedb. As it requires a data dictionnary to be built, it is quite
> 'heavy' (in the way that it requires manipulating the XML file, etc) to
> use, I think it's better not to 'impose' its usage for people wanting more
> direct and simple access to the DBMS using only Libgda and Libgnomedb.
> 
that's why I talked about the GnomeDbDictionary class, as an extra class
to be used if apps want to. If not, they'll use the "normal" GnomeDb*
classes.

> Maybe we can keep everything as it is now, and see how the libraries are
> being used (and decide later if we want to merge Libgnomedb ands
> Libmergeant or not). What do you think?
> 
sounds good so that we can start ASAP. So, yes, let's have it in
libmergeant for now and see later on if it makes sense to merge.

> >> Right, it should 'remember' which data sources have already been used
> >> (by
> >> looking into ~/.mergeant for a 'dictionnary' file) and also propose to
> >> use
> >> another data source. If there is a 'dictionnary' file for a datasource,
> >> then opening the connection to the DBMS is not required.
> >>
> > right, doing this, we can have a way of working offline/online. That is,
> > if there's the dictionary file, you can allow the user to start working
> > on the data without connecting to the database, and then allow him/her
> > to go online (connect to the database).
> >
> > I guess a very nice feature addition would be to allow the user to sync
> > the changes he's done while offline, but this needs more thought, so I'd
> > start by making the UI read-only when offline to start. Then, we can add
> > later on the syncing code.
> 
> That could be a nice feature but it needs to be more thought of.
> 
yes, we'll talk about it later, but I think we should take it into
account since the beginning.

> >
> >>
> >> Note about Libmergeant's status: I will put it into CVS on Friday (I
> >> won't
> >> have the time before that).
> >>
> > ok, perfect. Then, if you agree, I am going to start on the new UI in
> > Mergeant. For this:
> >
> > * I'll branch the current code in HEAD, and start working in HEAD.
> >
> > * Since I suppose the current code in mergeant/src is going to suffer a
> > lot of changes because of the libmergeant stuff, I am going to start the
> > new work in mergeant/frontend.
> 
> I think starting again from scratch will probably be best because of all
> the changes, and then it can be re-architectured correctly.
> 
yes, that's what made more sense to me. Also, current mergeant has some
stuff hard-coded that would make quite difficult the restructuring of
the code.

> >
> > And I guess that's all. My urge in starting is because we've got 6
> > months till the next version, and since this is a huge plan (to get
> > mergeant to 1.0) we really need to start working ASAP.
> >
> > So, if tonight nobody has said nothing against this, I'll start.
> 
> Ok with me!
> 
ok, then, I'll start with it.

> If you want to start with Libmergeant right now, I've put at
> http://malerbavintner.free.fr/libmergeant an archive of what will more or
> less be in the CVS.
> 
no need to right now, since I'll be working on the main UI. I'll wait
till Friday for you to commit. BTW, is libmergeant a separated module in
CVS, or do you plan to put it in mergeant? I'd vote for the second
option. We can still distribute a separated package of libmergeant if
needed.

cheers