Questions about gnuCash backend access

[Daniel Espinosa]

2007/8/29, Josh Sled <jsled at asynchronous.org>:
> "Daniel Espinosa" <esodan at gmail.com> writes:
> > Well I still wait for my patch to be applied to QofCollection (see bug
> > #453502) and wants to alling the current API convention to GObject's
> > one (see bug #470788).
>
> ("alling" isn't an English word.  What do you mean?)
>

I mean, is it convenient? is it usefull to use conventions from GObject?

I think an exposed API must be as mininal as possible, but feature
rich, clean and not expose any "potencial dangerous" functions used
just in the core's internals.

I'm writing a test program to use the actual API, measure its
usability and file bugs if potencial.

QUESTION:

QOF headers has a lot of coments pointing potencial bugs or even
actual bugs Can I add this as bugs in bugzilla?


>
> Regardless, there's no *requirement* that we change the convention.  They're
> just that ... conventions.  At the same time, most of us do want to change
> the names and what not, but there are better and worse times to do it.
>

I'm the one who wants to change "a lot of internals" and "exposed
externals", and yes I think there's better time than other to make
changes, but the main developers must agree what and where (defining
the future of the core) and start aa quick as possible, becouse we
need to spent a lot of time.

-- 
Trabajar, la mejor arma para tu superación
"de grano en grano, se hace la arena" (R) (entrámite, pero para los
cuates: LIBRE)