sqlite file format, anyone?

[Derek Atkins]

linas at linas.org (Linas Vepstas) writes:

> > Luckily I don't have to think about all the multi-user excess for
> > the "XML replacement". 
> 
> You can avoid locking and transactions completely, I think.  If you add
> setters to gncobject, then I think you just might be able to do things
> in a completely generic fashion.  

This already exists..   Take a look at gncObjectRegisterBackend().
That interface allows you to register each object for each backend
it supports.  Each backend defined a "gncobject plugin api", and each
object that wants support in that backend implements that api and
registers with gncobject for that backend.

The business code already uses this for XML.

The SQL code would work this way, too.

> > My hope is that "balance checkpoints" can coincide with Periods.
> > Instead of using stored procedures to compute balances, we merge
> > balance checkpoints in with Period support...  And balances are
> > computed at Period boundaries.
> > 
> > It does mean you need to pull in all transactions within a period to
> > get proper balances, 
> 
> yes, that is correct.
> 
> > but honestly I dont consider that a problem.  Do
> > you?
> 
> Its certainly no worse than the situation for the file backend.
> So that's OK with me.
> 
> > This approach also means we can toss away the stored procedure mess,
> > because balance computation is pushed in when we do period rollover.
> 
> Right, you wouldn't need that for the period==checkpoint idea.  
> The word 'toss' scares me; the postgres backend does do the scalable,
> multi-user thing, I want to keep that, and add the approriate 
> generic-object support so that we can more easily get the business 
> objects in there, in a scalable, multi-user fashion.
> 
> What I'm not clear on is how much Matthew's re-write ends up tossing
> the multi-user, scalable, etc. support.   I'm thinking that Matthew
> might do best by trying to somehow work with you to do a generic-object
> support for the embedded sql backend, that I could back-port to qof
> and then make use of in the existing postgres backend to add the 
> missing features.  (after I finish Lots :-)

I'm fairly confident Matthew wont toss multi-user, scalable support..
However see my previous message about another approach to the
multi-user support.

Perhaps I should re-kindle the RPC Backend ;)

-derek

-- 
       Derek Atkins, SB '93 MIT EE, SM '95 MIT Media Laboratory
       Member, MIT Student Information Processing Board  (SIPB)
       URL: http://web.mit.edu/warlord/    PP-ASEL-IA     N1NWH
       warlord at MIT.EDU                        PGP key available