[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> I'm confident that adding engine function and expanding its data
> model is a far simpler task than coming up with the GUI to deal with
> that.
No doubt.
> I do not mean to discourage an SQL back end; I think this would be
> great. But I think it would be a fundamental mistake to allow
> either the GUI or the scheme to manipulate the SQL directly as shown
> above. I'm afraid of stating this too strongly, because I think
> it'll raise hackles, but I think there's real merit to modularity,
> objects, componenets, reusable pieces. It would be a major mistake,
> a step back to merge sql and scheme/gui together directly without
> abstraction in between.
No real disagreement here. No hackles from me anyway :> I was mostly
just speculating about the more general "no good database in a file
library" issue I've had in my mind off and on for a while. I'm not
even sure I care about it as it *directly* relates to GnuCash, though
it might provide a suitable back-end (via a suitable abstraction
layer) if it were available.
--
Rob Browning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> PGP=E80E0D04F521A094 532B97F5D64E3930
--
Gnucash Developer's List
To unsubscribe send empty email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
