GDA: A few questions

[Derek Atkins]

Chris Shoemaker <c.shoemaker at cox.net> writes:

>> (*) This really should be fixed: the template-transaction accounts
>> should probably be a more literal mirror of the real account tree, in
>> terms of types and commodities.  The whole point of using real Accounts
>> and Transactions for the template transactions was to leverage the
>> editor (register) and the implicit application constraints for the
>> template transactions ... I didn't want to re-implment or re-specify a
>> bunch of logic around "template" transactions seperate from "real"
>> transactions, and especially not the register component.  But for a few
>> reasons, they did diverge.  In any case, it'd be nice if they were
>> closer together, but that's not a focus of the branches/sx-cleanup/,
>> right now.
>
> I know I've mentioned this to jsled, but FTR, I would recommend taking
> this one step farther... by making SXs real transactions, using real
> accounts and real splits, but simply flagged at the transaction-level
> as "SX".  Then, we make the normal transaction queries exclude SX
> transactions.
>
> As far as register integration goes, then it's just a matter of adding
> a treeviewcolumn that knows how to display, edit and store (in KVP)
> the formula-amounts.

See, I think it should go the other way..  I think each object
should be unique and have its own tree-model.  If the register
rewrite is general enough then that's all we should need, right?
We could do a test based on an Invoice register....

-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