further plans with guppi, bonobo?
Sun, 6 May 2001 00:06:27 -0700
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
First of all: Why did the mailing list search feature disappear from
gnucash.org? I had to look through the whole Internet to find a searchable
archive at mail-archive.com :-)
I was wondering what our future plans of guppi integration are. Right now
we have the libguppitank interface to guppi, but it supports only a small
subset of Guppi's features. In a short irc chat today with Jon Trowbridge
he said that e.g. linegraphs and pricebars are working fairly well inside
Guppi. To use them via libguppitank one would 'only' need to write the
libguppitank wrappers which should be fairly straightforward.
But I started to think about why we are actually using libguppitank. This
interface is another layer between the guppi features and gnucash. That
means it is an additional layer of code that has to be maintained in the
long run. What would be different if we use bonobo to interface to guppi?
Could it be that the "additional interface layer" is handled automatically
by CORBA, so that there's no additional code that has to be maintained?
And, by the way, what were the reasons for not using bonobo but instead
creating a new API? The mailing list doesn't have any discussion on that,
so I guess it was an internal gnumatic discussion -- does somebody recall
some of the arguments?
I would actually volunteer to extend any interface of Guppi so that we can
get *really* sexy guppi charts. I would estimate this to be work for the
next 2...4 months. BUT before I invest a whole lot of work into Guppi I
would rather like to make sure that the API structure does make sense. If
libguppitank is solely created for and used by Gnucash, then I would
strongly vote to rather find some other way to connect to Guppi. In the
gnome context that would probably be bonobo.
What do you think? Why did we choose libguppitank? Where am I wrong? :)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.4 (GNU/Linux)
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----