Fwd: Re: http://lwn.net/Articles/43856/

[BenoitGrégoire]

----------  Forwarded Message  ----------

Subject: Re: http://lwn.net/Articles/43856/
Date: Thursday 14 August 2003 22:35
From: Alex Perry <alex.perry at qm.com>
To: Benoit Grégoire <bock at step.polymtl.ca>

Sorry for the delay (work deadlines).

Benoit Grégoire wrote:
> On Monday 11 August 2003 12:53, you wrote:
>>(a) enabling me to use a generic multiuser database as the backend, or
>
> The postgres backend is in the process of being re-writen, and the plan is
> then to move to a generic library (libdbi or some such),

Ok, I'll be happy to switch (and assist in development as needed) at that
 time.

>>(b) offering the full functionality of the backend through PHP or similar

This was intended to be an alternative to offering the (a) option.
Since you plan to give me direct access through PG in any case as above,
and I can use triggers to protect the underlying tables from damage,
I have no direct need to have access to the backend independently.

>>so I've been targeting MySQL and PHP and incrementally rolling my own.
>
> Writing directly in a
> database will still be actively discuraged.

See below.

> It may be usefull if you could send a profile of what you would use it for.
> Knowing what other want is always usefull, wether or not we make it a
> priority.

I have four unrelated uses for the software.

(1) For my personal accounts, it would be nice to transition from my homebrew
database methodology in the long term, incrementally implementing all the
features I need within GC so that I can abandon the database forms later on.
During the transition period, I'd have a mapping layer that makes the GC-PG
table structure look like the structure I'm currently using throughout.
I should point out that I run my personal accounts like a small business
complete with all the reporting stuff, except that the data flow through
the process is actually the personal household management stuff.

(2) For my consulting and my business accounts, but that is trivial since
GC is targeting small businesses and I want to achieve (1) above in any case.
The two run completely separately so that audits of the business can occur
without exposing my personal finances in depressing and distracting detail.

(3) My employer would like to have all employees be able to see details of
the operational accounts and costs incurred, but with the subset carefully
restricted in accordance with the duties and responsibilities of each
individual.  Since the GC interface is so easy to use for beginners,
my hope is to use the PG backend with the tables locked as readonly
for this user, and the inquiries being made by GC actually hitting a set
of views that implement the selective access described above.  The backend
table has hundreds of millions of dollars worth of financial activity,
but each person will see a subset that looks like a few hundred thousand
dollars.  The subset is comparable to the funds being tracked and managed
in the average household, so the performance scaling should be similar.
Of course, people who manage stuff at the multimilliondollar level will
of course be trained on using the corporate accounting system directly.

(4) I have yet to find a reasonable tool for planning and costing future
work.  If I'm going to have to build a homegrown one, it may as well be
designed as a module that plugs on the side of GC and takes advantage
of the infrastructure to save me effort.  It also (for free) creates
the opportunity for users to transition between this (3) above easily.

Hope that helps,
	Alex.

-------------------------------------------------------

-- 
Benoit Grégoire
http://step.polymtl.ca/~bock/