sqlite file format, anyone?

[Linas Vepstas]

On Sun, Jun 22, 2003 at 03:30:11PM -0400, Derek Atkins was heard to remark:
> linas at linas.org (Linas Vepstas) writes:
> 
> > On Sun, Jun 22, 2003 at 02:49:40PM -0400, Derek Atkins was heard to remark:
> > > linas at linas.org (Linas Vepstas) writes:
> > > 
> > > > OK, what I was thinking of was more along the lines of having something like:
> > > > 
> > > > static LoadObjectDef setters[] = {
> > > >     { ACCOUNT_NAME_, LOAD_STRING, (Setter)xaccAccountSetName },
> > > >     { ACCOUNT_DESCRIPTION_, LOAD_STRING, (Setter)xaccAccountSetDescription },
> > > >     { ACCOUNT_NOTES_, LOAD_STRING, (Setter)xaccAccountSetNotes },
> > > > };
> > > 
> > > Ahh, I see what you mean here.  I don't think I want the "load-string"
> > > per se, but adding a "setter" to the object definition would be a
> > > reasonable first step.
> > 
> > OK, Great. Yes, I glossed the details (like 'whats the sql table name',
> > and etc.) but I'm pretty sure that this is what I really want to have
> > at the lowest levels.
> 
> Remember that there are two things going on here.  The gncObject
> interface is not all-encompassing, although if we had the setters as
> well as getters then we could use it to create a dynamic UI for each
> object.  A nice pipe-dream, but not one I care about right now.

Well, I figure its something that Matthew needs to care about, right? 
Its what would be needed to make adding business objects easier.

> I am mostly serious about it.  I think that a "gnucashd" really does
> make a LOT of things easier.  It would imply a single application

Look, I don't want to sound like I'm against it; I did try to write a
gnucashd myself at one point, using the xml infrastruture, before
the 'lets redesign from scratch' camp gratuitously broke the xml code. 

But I was doing it because I thought there were some neat web-integrated
things one could do.   I just don't buy the 'it makes things easier'
claim.  I can see that it makes some serialization issues potentially 
easier, depending on your design, but I can think of other issues coming 
up.

Besides, the pg backend 'works' today; it doesn't have business object
support, but I'm thinking that with 'setters', it might not be hard to
add business object support.

> Matthew's work

Well, I suspect that this is really what we are talking about, isn't it?

--linas

-- 
pub  1024D/01045933 2001-02-01 Linas Vepstas (Labas!) <linas at linas.org>
PGP Key fingerprint = 8305 2521 6000 0B5E 8984  3F54 64A9 9A82 0104 5933