On Thu, 2007-04-12 at 17:42 -0500, Daniel Espinosa wrote: > 2007/4/12, David Hampton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > On Thu, 2007-04-12 at 14:06 -0500, Daniel Espinosa wrote: > > > I can understand why you feel that; the reason is that I don't think > > > that convert QOF to GObject will be a good idea because its > > > implementation doesn't allow it, you'll never have a full GObject > > > system if you insist to use QOF. > > > > You keep making that statement, but you haven't explained what you mean > > by it. Why can't we eventually migrate to a full GObject, what will be > > missing, and what will that mean to the project? Please either explain > > yourself, or stop spreading what (at this point) I can only call FUD. > > > > David > > I don't want to create FUD, sorry. But you're right, I need to explain > in more details:
I will point out that nothing you said or the responses you've received indicate that: - gnucash can never have a full GObject system - anyone is insisting to use QOF (in its current form) - anyone does not want to migrate to GObject features The issue has always been one of timing and planning, that the changes are made as a set of small, stable, understandable, auditable changes. -- ...jsled http://asynchronous.org/ - a=jsled;b=asynchronous.org; echo [EMAIL PROTECTED]
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ gnucash-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.gnucash.org/mailman/listinfo/gnucash-devel
