Re: GDA: current status

2006-12-09 Thread Derek Atkins
Quoting Chris Shoemaker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >> > > The thing about FreqSpec is that they don't look like they need to be >> > > evenly spaced. I don't know why you would not do that, but you might >> > > want a FreqSpec to be "last friday of every month" or "15th and 30th of >> > > every month"

Re: GDA: current status

2006-12-09 Thread Chris Shoemaker
> > > The thing about FreqSpec is that they don't look like they need to be > > > evenly spaced. I don't know why you would not do that, but you might > > > want a FreqSpec to be "last friday of every month" or "15th and 30th of > > > every month" which Recurrence wouldn't handle. > > > > Sure it

Re: GDA: current status

2006-12-09 Thread Chris Shoemaker
On Sat, Dec 09, 2006 at 06:37:55PM -0500, Derek Atkins wrote: > Quoting Phil Longstaff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > >> >> > - Recurrences are currently only used by budgets, and recurrence > >> >> > save/restore is included in the budget save/restore code. If > >> >> > recurrences will eventually be

Re: GDA: current status

2006-12-09 Thread Derek Atkins
Quoting Phil Longstaff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >> >> > - Recurrences are currently only used by budgets, and recurrence >> >> > save/restore is included in the budget save/restore code. If >> >> > recurrences will eventually be used elsewhere in GC, recurrence >> >> > save/restore code may need to b

Re: GDA: current status

2006-12-09 Thread Phil Longstaff
On Sat, 2006-09-12 at 17:14 -0500, Derek Atkins wrote: > Quoting Phil Longstaff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > My question about "should the concept of clean/dirty disappear" is to > > raise it as an architectural change. Should these be put into bugzilla? > > If so, I will. > > Oh, no, architecturally

Re: GDA: current status

2006-12-09 Thread Derek Atkins
Quoting Phil Longstaff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > On Sat, 2006-09-12 at 13:19 -0500, Derek Atkins wrote: >> Quoting Phil Longstaff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >> >> > - To avoid having the backend commit everything twice (because of the >> > Qof two phase commit protocol), saved objects are marked clean when

Re: GDA: current status

2006-12-09 Thread Phil Longstaff
On Sat, 2006-09-12 at 13:19 -0500, Derek Atkins wrote: > Quoting Phil Longstaff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > - To avoid having the backend commit everything twice (because of the > > Qof two phase commit protocol), saved objects are marked clean when > > committed. To do this, I need to reach right

Re: GDA: current status

2006-12-09 Thread Chris Shoemaker
On Sat, Dec 09, 2006 at 11:53:52AM -0500, Phil Longstaff wrote: > I've included a portion of the GDA_STATUS file which brings up some > questions: > > - Recurrences are currently only used by budgets, and recurrence > save/restore is included in the budget save/restore code. If > recurrences will

Re: GDA: current status

2006-12-09 Thread Derek Atkins
Quoting Phil Longstaff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > - To avoid having the backend commit everything twice (because of the > Qof two phase commit protocol), saved objects are marked clean when > committed. To do this, I need to reach right into the QofInstance > structure and clear the dirty flag. Ther

GDA: current status

2006-12-09 Thread Phil Longstaff
I've included a portion of the GDA_STATUS file which brings up some questions: - To avoid having the backend commit everything twice (because of the Qof two phase commit protocol), saved objects are marked clean when committed. To do this, I need to reach right into the QofInstance structure and