Re: [gnome-db] What DWI does [was Re: GnuCash page on GO site]

[Dru <andru treshna com>]

Rodrigo Moya wrote:
> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> gnome-db-list mailing list
> gnome-db-list gnome org
> http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-db-list

gnomedb widgets need ability easy ability to popualte widgets from 
non-libda sources (proberly already possible). with possible tie-ins on 
sorting etc.  libgda api needs to be able to return field information 
attributes. API is a bit complex and messy compared with other simplier
data access libraries.  It has other things in there that proberly 
shoulnd't be sitting in libgda, though i imagine this is because of 
having to support a range of datbases and not just simply SQL.