Re: [gnome-db] What DWI does [was Re: GnuCash page on GO site]
- From: Rodrigo Moya <rodrigo gnome-db org>
- To: Andrew Hill <dru treshna com>
- Cc: Linas Vepstas <linas linas org>, Charles Goodwin <charlie xwt org>, Derek Atkins <warlord MIT EDU>, gnucash-devel gnucash org, Josh Sled <jsled-gnomeoffice asynchronous org>, Gnome Office <gnome-office-list gnome org>, gtk-list gnome org, gnome-db-list gnome org
- Subject: Re: [gnome-db] What DWI does [was Re: GnuCash page on GO site]
- Date: Thu, 04 Mar 2004 18:57:03 +0100
On Fri, 2004-03-05 at 04:39 +1300, Andrew Hill wrote:
> ok i'm gonna comment cause my projects are very similar to Lina's and
> i've run into similar problems to building the nessary tools to rapidly
> develop database applications for gnome.
>
> My approach is very similar but silighty different.
> developer builds sql database. (currently only postgresql fully
> supported, libgda and mysql very partial support)
> glade xml is used to generate bond xml (http://bond.treshna.com)
> developer adds in sql statements and attachs code they want to app.
> reports can be written in papyrus (http://payrus.treshna.com)
> database application front end ready to go and can be deployed.
>
> On Mon, Mar 01, 2004 at 10:17:18AM +0100, Rodrigo Moya was heard to remark:
>
> >>http://dwi.sourceforge.net is the object framework I'm planning
> >>on using for the future gnucash core engine.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >what are the advantages of this over libgda?
> >could you ellaborate more please?
> >
> >
>
> This is a different to libgda. dwi and bond are more higher up
> interfaces than libgda. libgda requires writting code, and you'll often
> find yourself repeating the same tasks over and over again like
> inserting and updating sql statements, dealing with default values etc
> when you build a large db app. libgda is a lot more powerful in some
> ways cause its lower down but if you want to write a huge app in a short
> amount of time its quicker and easier to manage your database objects
> and forms as one in glade and xml etc. It comes down to what type of
> application your writing/best tool for the job.
>
right. The question is if, as bond/papyrus have tried to do, qof can be
changed to use libgda for the basic data access.
Then, as I said in a previous mail, we can see what things make sense
from it and either put them in libgda/libgnomedb/whatever, or keep them
in its current place.
If all this conversation is about sharing technology, then, we've got:
* libgda -> uniform data access to several data sources
* qof stuff -> built on top of libgda
That's what I'm saying. Is there any chance of this?
cheers
[
Date Prev][
Date Next] [
Thread Prev][
Thread Next]
[
Thread Index]
[
Date Index]
[
Author Index]