XML size (was: no subject)

[Paul Lussier]

In a message dated: 03 Apr 2002 15:38:52 PST
Chris Lyttle said:

>On Wed, 2002-04-03 at 13:58, Paul Lussier wrote:
>> In a message dated: 03 Apr 2002 13:00:41 PST
>> Chris Lyttle said:
>> 
>> >Actually this whole thread started off with a USER request to revert to
>> >a BINARY format as it was faster, smaller and easier for him. So going
>> >along the lines of your arguments it sort of defeats your point as its
>> >pretty obvious to me that the programmers on gnucash DO listen to what
>> >their users ask for.
>> 
>> I never stated that the GnuCash developers don't listen to what their 
>> users ask for.  I've been following the development of GnuCash and a 
>
>You're right, you didnt actually state this, but it was implied in your
>reasoning about why not to use SQL.

No, it was not.  What was stated, and quite clearly, was that I was 
simply voicing my opinion.  As you have clearly pointed out, the 
thread was begun by someone expressing discontent with the XML 
format.  That lead to a discussion which was overly in favor of moving 
to an SQL backend.  All I wanted was to state that I was against it, 
and why, so that there was at least someone else offering a counter 
point to the "let's move to SQL" argument.  Nowhere, not once, 
did I ever insinuate, intimate, imply, or even directly state that I 
felt that the GnuCash developers don't listen to the users of GnuCash.
I'm sorry if that's the way you read or interpreted it, but that's 
not the way it was written or intended.

>> Additionally, while what you state about the origin of the thread is true,
>> I find that almost totally irrelevent to the rest of the conversation 
>> which has since taken place.
>> 
>So now instead of attacking the developers, you turn to saying my input
>is 'irrelevant'?

No, again, you fail to clearly read what I stated.  What I stated was 
that the fact that the thread was begun by someone asking about the 
origins of the XML format is now irrelevent to the ensuing conversation.

Nowhere did I state that I found your particular views 
irrelevent.  Just the fact of how the thread began.  And I still 
believe that to be so.

Who began or what they asked for in the original post is, at this point,
irrelevent to the conversation, which is now about whether or not an SQL
backend is better or worse than an ascii backend.  Do you disagree?
If so, can you please explain the relevancy to me, since I'm obviously
missing the connection?

>I'm a user, I'm expressing my viewpoint on this thread, how is it that what 
>I say is irrelevant?

Again, I never said that your viewpoint was irrelevent.

>How about being constructive and telling us some of the disadvantages
>technically you see to using SQL instead of 'I dont like SQL cause I
>cant open it with a text editor and change things'?

I have done that over the course of several posts.  You  seem to
have misread those as you did the initial post which began this thread,
and the post in which you believe me to have stated such things as
"the gnucash developers don't listen to users" or that I
"find your viewpoint irrelevent".

I am not attacking and have not attacked anyone including you,
in any of my posts.

I value everyone's opinion and insight on this list, including yours.

I'm trying to learn something about software design and the decisions
made in the process.  But so far, I have not heard an overly valid
argument for moving the back end from an ascii based format to an
SQL backend which would also be a major win for the user.

Everything stated so far has been essentially that it would be
"easier to program it this way".  That, IMO, is not a valid reason 
for changing it, at least not at this point.  There are more 
important things which need attention, like incorporating major 
feature sets.  Don't fix what ain't broke.  It's ugly, but it's not 
broken.

-- 

Seeya,
Paul