r20616-20630 (GncOwner)

John Ralls jralls at ceridwen.us
Mon May 16 10:11:07 EDT 2011


On May 16, 2011, at 6:10 AM, Derek Atkins wrote:

> John Ralls <jralls at ceridwen.us> writes:
> 
>> I'm not at all sure that the plugin architecture gets us anything in
>> return for the added complexity, though. AFAIK there aren't any
>> plugins. The various libraries in Gnucash proper that are dloaded
>> instead of being dynamically linked sure doesn't get us anything
>> except longer load times and missed optimization opportunities.
> 
> Technically the business features were designed to be a plugin.  When I
> originally worked on that code a decade ago my idea was that packagers
> could build a "gnucash" app and then supply a secondary
> "gnucash-business" plugin that would supply all the business code, GUIs,
> etc.   Obviously that never happened, but that WAS the original design.
> 

Then why are the data objects in src/engine? Did they get moved there later?

Regardless, is there a good reason to keep (or restore) that architecture? It fails the test Christian advocated for aqbanking, because the business stuff has no special dependencies. It's also difficult to separate the data objects into an optional module and maintain referential integrity across the module interface.

Regards,
John Ralls




More information about the gnucash-devel mailing list