Object System

[Geert Janssens]

On dinsdag 20 september 2011, Christian Stimming wrote:
> Zitat von John Ralls <jralls at ceridwen.us>:
> > [...]
> > My feeling is that the first option, finishing the GObject
> > conversion, has the lowest risk. I can start in on it
> 
> Thanks for the exhaustive summary. Yes, I agree with pretty much all
> of your points. Yes, I've thought about these issues every now and
> then as well. Yes, the mix-up of different object systems is a major
> issue in the engine.
> 
> And: Yes, moving all of our "business logic" ("engine") objects into
> GObject seems to me the best compromise in terms of where to spend our
> current effort.
> 
Same here. I read your analysis, John, and to me it also looks like GObject is 
the best way forward right now. The ability to wrap it in C++ and its 
introspection capabilities should give us enough flexibility for the future.

Moving to a completely different model like a pure C++ engine or rewriting 
GnuCash in a higher level language seems too much of an effort for the limited 
resources we currently have.

I must say my GObject knowledge is limited to what I've seen here and there in 
the GnuCash code. I currently wouldn't even know which parts of GnuCash are 
using GObject properly or not. So before I could contribute sensibly in that 
conversion, I'll have to study it some more or get some guidance.

But as far as I'm concerned, you can go ahead and GObjectify GnuCash. Your 
work can serve as an example for me as well. In the meantime I have still 
plenty of work on the GtkBuilder conversion and some customer related 
requests.

Geert