further plans with guppi, bonobo?

Christian Stimming stimming@tuhh.de
Mon, 14 May 2001 10:52:58 -0700


On Sunday 06 May 2001 06:20, Bill Gribble wrote:
> I think it makes sense; Gnucash really doesn't use the full generality
> of Guppi, and the guppitank interface is a reasonable abstraction of
> it IMO.  I think there are plenty of things about guppitank that can
> be improved.  But keep in mind how much stuff guppitank does!  if we
> throw it out, we will basically have to completely reimplement it,
> with the main difference being that the source code is in the gnucash
> tree instead of the guppi tree.

Just for the record: 

We will probably continue using libguppitank for the current graphs, i.e. 
for those which are already implemented in libguppitank. If we want to 
come up with more sophisticated/complex graphs, like a price plot with 
variance bars and several average lines, then we might just use the full 
generality of the Guppi API. Currently the code for the full-blown Guppi 
API is kept inside libguppitank. In the future, instead of adding new code 
for new graphs to libguppitank, we might just add the same amount of code 
to Gnucash. 

As a side-effect this won't require a Guppi update for any sort of new 
graphs anymore.

Christian Stimming
Version: GnuPG v1.0.4 (GNU/Linux)