XML-RPC interface

[Dave Peticolas]

--=-xWLH3I3CH58XfDS+k95q
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Wed, 2001-09-26 at 07:21, Linas Vepstas wrote:
> The 'slow' issue shouldn't be underesimated.  To display a transaction,
> you need to make dozens of calls: 'get date', 'get description' 'get
> amount', etc. etc.  If each call took even 100 millisecs, it would take
> a few seconds just to display one transaction.   If each call took
> only 10 millisecs, then it would take a few seconds to display ten
> transactions. Forget 100.

Well, duh, but the point is you wouldn't use the engine api directly,
you would create a few higher-level calls that wrapped all that=20
information up to get it (or change it) in one rpc call. Like
I said, there are plenty of applications where this isn't good
enough, but there are some where it is.


> I also think you overestimate how hard it is to get other language
> bindings.   At least with swig, its essentially a no-op.  You run swig,
> you've got bindings.  You're done. =20

I'm not overestimating, I'm just saying it's still simpler with
XML-RPC. Check out http://www.xmlrpc.com/directory/1568/implementations
to see how many platforms have xml-rpc clients, all of which will be
supported by a single xml-rpc server implementation for gnucash.
Can swig match that?

dave


--=-xWLH3I3CH58XfDS+k95q
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org

iD8DBQA7skTg5effKKCmfpIRAnUXAJwMH6FGWAFnpT+7oQq8EvPLPekkqQCgsH0W
yglWUnMLoGuuH+tyuLIpkMQ=
=6oZq
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--=-xWLH3I3CH58XfDS+k95q--