further plans with guppi, bonobo?

Christian Stimming stimming@tuhh.de
Sun, 6 May 2001 00:06:27 -0700


Hi there,

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? :)

Version: GnuPG v1.0.4 (GNU/Linux)