Survey comments as well

[Robert Graham Merkel]

On Fri, 13 Jul 2001 17:27:00 Michael Fair wrote:
> > While I agree with the
> > above comments my mind keeps going back to those that are already
> > crying about the dependency list, and adding Evolution to it, although
> > I've heard great things about it, would just add to the stack.
> 
> In truth I was wrong to have implied that GNUCash should
> be dependent on Evolution.  The idea is truly to have both
> dependant upon generic object/data storage services package.
> 
> > it might be more desireable to have a lot of dependencies,
> > that add a lot of bells and whistles to the program and 
> 
> Here again I begin to see GNUCash diverge into several
> different packages.  There is gnucash-common, gnucash-server,
> and gnucash-client.  I think the developers are beginning
> to see the need for this kind of separation to meet all
> their design goals.  
> -  gnucash-Common and gnucash-Server should not have any 
>     dependancies on any GUI related packages. 
> - Both Client and Server depend on Common
> - Common depends on stuff like xml libraries and other
>     p[ackages that both Server and Client need
> - Server itself depends on stuff like the object/data storage 
>     services and SQL libraries and any other special libraries
>     that are specific to running the server but not needed
>     by the GUI.

Some of the developers are kicking around ways of modularising
things even further.  If you need, say, a hypothetical "payroll"
module, install it.  If not, you don't have to worry about it.
All-singing, all-dancing stock analysis?  Take it or leave it.
And so on.

-- 
------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Merkel	                           rgmerk@mira.net

Go You Big Red Fire Engine
-- Unknown Audience Member at Adam Hills standup gig
------------------------------------------------------------