On zondag 15 mei 2011, Phil Longstaff wrote:
> ...
> I'm not sure what itch bothers me most right now. I'm happy to let you
> (John) take the lead on refactoring the main core. I also see myself
> more interested in the foundation of a software system rather than its
> UI, so I'm not really inter
On maandag 16 mei 2011, John Ralls wrote:
> On May 16, 2011, at 6:10 AM, Derek Atkins wrote:
> > John Ralls writes:
> >> I'm not at all sure that the plugin architecture gets us anything in
> >> return for the added complexity, though. AFAIK there aren't any
> >> plugins. The various libraries in
On zondag 15 mei 2011, John Ralls wrote:
> On May 14, 2011, at 4:33 PM, Phil Longstaff wrote:
> > On Thu, 2011-05-12 at 13:49 -0400, John Ralls wrote:
> >> Geert, I was actually thinking from the data model view rather than the
> >> accounting view, but ideally the data model closely reflects the
>
Yes. They were moved there later
Phil
-
I used to be a hypochondriac AND a kleptomaniac. So I took something for it.
From: John Ralls
To: Derek Atkins
Cc: devel gnucash
Sent: Mon, May 16, 2011 10:11:07 AM
Subject: Re: r20616-20630 (GncOwner)
On
On May 16, 2011, at 6:10 AM, Derek Atkins wrote:
> John Ralls writes:
>
>> I'm not at all sure that the plugin architecture gets us anything in
>> return for the added complexity, though. AFAIK there aren't any
>> plugins. The various libraries in Gnucash proper that are dloaded
>> instead of b
John Ralls writes:
> I'm not at all sure that the plugin architecture gets us anything in
> return for the added complexity, though. AFAIK there aren't any
> plugins. The various libraries in Gnucash proper that are dloaded
> instead of being dynamically linked sure doesn't get us anything
> exce
On May 15, 2011, at 10:19 AM, Phil Longstaff wrote:
> I'm looking at what to work on next. I have a few ideas:
>
> 1) I want to refactor the preferences system (I wrote an e-mail quite a
> few months ago about this). My thought was to have a preferences
> interface similar to the java one (a h
Phil,
> -- Forwarded message --
> From: Phil Longstaff
> To: devel gnucash
> Date: Sat, 14 May 2011 16:33:27 -0400
> Subject: Re: r20616-20630 (GncOwner)
> On Thu, 2011-05-12 at 13:49 -0400, John Ralls wrote:
>
snip
> This all sounds great and I'm
Am Sonntag, 15. Mai 2011 schrieb John Ralls:
> The steps I have in mind are:
> 1. Get complete test coverage for QOF, Engine, Business Core, and Backend
> 2. Rewrite those libraries into a single, coherent class system (we'll
> discuss which one when the test-writing gets close to being done) 3.
>
On Sat, 2011-05-14 at 22:34 -0400, John Ralls wrote:
> On May 14, 2011, at 4:33 PM, Phil Longstaff wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 2011-05-12 at 13:49 -0400, John Ralls wrote:
> >
> >> Geert, I was actually thinking from the data model view rather than the
> >> accounting view, but ideally the data model cl
optimisation.
-Original Message-
From: Nicholas Manville
Sent: 15/05/2011 09:58:31
To: Phil Longstaff; devel gnucash
Subject: RE: r20616-20630 (GncOwner)
On the particular point about accounts vs tax lines i wonder if it would be
better to have a seperate class of 'tax objects&#
to all the tax-objects of
account sub-class that reference it with a maintenance function during any
commit phase to keep them congruent.
-Original Message-
From: Phil Longstaff
Sent: 14/05/2011 21:33:27
Subject: Re: r20616-20630 (GncOwner)
On Thu, 2011-05-12 at 13:49 -0400, J
On May 14, 2011, at 4:33 PM, Phil Longstaff wrote:
> On Thu, 2011-05-12 at 13:49 -0400, John Ralls wrote:
>
>> Geert, I was actually thinking from the data model view rather than the
>> accounting view, but ideally the data model closely reflects the
>> problem domain, so they're not dissimilar.
On Thu, 2011-05-12 at 13:49 -0400, John Ralls wrote:
> Geert, I was actually thinking from the data model view rather than the
> accounting view, but ideally the data model closely reflects the
> problem domain, so they're not dissimilar.
>
[OpenERP - deleted]
> But more broadly, Gnucash is su
On May 12, 2011, at 11:09 AM, Geert Janssens wrote:
> On donderdag 12 mei 2011, John Ralls wrote:
>> I'd intended
>> to rework the design as part of the transactional refactoring after
>> getting unit test coverage in place, but ISTM you should consider it as
>> part of this effort as it will mak
On donderdag 12 mei 2011, John Ralls wrote:
> I'd intended
> to rework the design as part of the transactional refactoring after
> getting unit test coverage in place, but ISTM you should consider it as
> part of this effort as it will make a big difference in how your overview
> pages work.
Let m
On donderdag 12 mei 2011, John Ralls wrote:
> On May 12, 2011, at 6:22 AM, Geert Janssens wrote:
> > On donderdag 12 mei 2011, John Ralls wrote:
> >> Geert,
> >>
> >> Where are you trying to get to with these changes?
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >> John Ralls
> >
> > My larger goal is to get better int
On May 12, 2011, at 6:22 AM, Geert Janssens wrote:
> On donderdag 12 mei 2011, John Ralls wrote:
>> Geert,
>>
>> Where are you trying to get to with these changes?
>>
>> Regards,
>> John Ralls
>
> My larger goal is to get better integration of the business functions in the
> GnuCash UI and lo
On donderdag 12 mei 2011, John Ralls wrote:
> Geert,
>
> Where are you trying to get to with these changes?
>
> Regards,
> John Ralls
My larger goal is to get better integration of the business functions in the
GnuCash UI and logic. In my experience it just takes way too many clicks and
contex
Geert,
Where are you trying to get to with these changes?
Regards,
John Ralls
___
gnucash-devel mailing list
gnucash-devel@gnucash.org
https://lists.gnucash.org/mailman/listinfo/gnucash-devel
20 matches
Mail list logo
