engine objects vs. SX or invoices (was: GDA: A few questions)

Josh Sled jsled at asynchronous.org
Tue Dec 12 10:05:21 EST 2006

On Mon, 2006-12-11 at 22:06 -0500, Chris Shoemaker wrote:
> Invoices basically reuse the engine objects.  But SXs have:
> struct TTInfo_s
> which look suspiciously like a Transaction, and 
> struct TTSplitInfo_s
> which looks suspiciously like a Split.  And then the whole duplicated
> accounts setup.  

These structures aren't the actual storage, and are only barely used as
runtime representations of Template [Splits and] Transactions.

They were sourced from Robert Merkel's work on the "SX-from-transaction"
dialog, and are used (by my hand) in the Mortgage/Loan Druid.  In both
cases, they're immediately passed to
xaccSchedXactionSetTemplateTrans(...), which just converts these
degenerate structures into the "real" template Transactions.  Looking
back on it, I'd just the calling code to write the template structures
directly, though maybe with some convenience functions for readability.

The only structures relevant are the Accounts, Transactions and Splits
rooted in the "Template" Account-Group.

http://asynchronous.org/ - `a=jsled; b=asynchronous.org; echo ${a}@${b}`
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://lists.gnucash.org/pipermail/gnucash-devel/attachments/20061212/616d7eb6/attachment.bin 

More information about the gnucash-devel mailing list