Is there anything *enjoyable* about our development process?

[Martin Preuss]

Hi,

On Saturday 15 October 2005 15:56, Derek Atkins wrote:
> Quoting Martin Preuss <aquamaniac at gmx.de>:
> > I don't think that it needs to be removed completely to attract
> > developers (as
> > it seems it is the best solution for reports, but I don't know enough
> > about Gnucash to decide). But for normal plugins it shouldn't be required
> > to learn scheme just to implement them.
>
> You don't.  There are plenty of gnucash modules that don't have
> scheme and are purely C code.
[...]
> > Implementing the importer code itself - e.g. the import module selector
> > etc - isn't too much pain (provided it is implemented in the G2 branch),
> > but it isn't easy for me to see where I could glue it into gnucash
> > without knowing scheme.
>
> You don't need to know scheme.  Indeed there is ZERO scheme in the
> current hbci importer in g2!  So I have no idea where you're thinking
> you need to know scheme to do what you want to do!
[...]

Well, e.g. in src/import-export/hbci there is the file "hbci.scm".
As it seems this file is needed to provide HBCI support for Gnucash, right? 
The same applies to src/import-export/mt940 (mp940-import.scm).

So in order to properly setup a plugin for Gnucash I need to provide such 
an .scm file, right? So I still need to know scheme in order to write a 
plugin. Or do I miss something?

If that's the case then I'm even unable to *start* to provide a plugin without 
knowing scheme. Sure, the plugin itself doesn't need to be written in scheme, 
but I wouldn't be able to let Gnucash use my plugin without that scheme 
setup.

At least that's what it looks like to me (but then I don't know enough about 
the internals of Gnucash) ...


Regards
Martin

-- 
"Things are only impossible until they're not"

AqBanking - http://www.aquamaniac.de/aqbanking/
LibChipcard - http://www.libchipcard.de/