aqbanking / ofx - account versus user

[Jessica Parsons]

In some cases, a person may have more than one user account (in addition to
more than one actual monetary account) with the same institution, so I
believe the User/Account terminology is still appropriate.  However,
autofilling the institution information when a particular User is selected
in the Account Configuration could be a useful function, though not
essential.

Personally, I don't think this change would go a very long way in making the
OFX setup process less confusing.  If one is putting effort into improving
this, I think a more detailed help section on the software would go quite a
bit farther.



On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 6:16 PM, Paul Abrahams <abrahams at acm.org> wrote:

> A confusing aspect of aqbanking is the distinction between the account and
> the
> user.  Both the account configuration and the user configuration contain
> information about the account holder and also about the financial
> institution.
> I think this could be improved.
>
> Suppose, instead, the configuration was divided into two parts: account and
> institution.  The institution information would contain only information
> about
> the institution and nothing about the specific account at that institution.
> The account information, on the other hand, would contain no information
> about
> the institution except for a link to the institution's configuration.  The
> link
> would be made using the Selected Users list as it now is, so an institution
> could be associated with several accounts but not vice versa.  With that
> arrangement a user could have several accounts at an institution without
> having to repeat any of the institution information.  This arrangement
> would
> hold up even if some institutions in the institution list use HBCI and
> others
> use OFX.
> _______________________________________________
> gnucash-user mailing list
> gnucash-user at gnucash.org
> https://lists.gnucash.org/mailman/listinfo/gnucash-user
> -----
> Please remember to CC this list on all your replies.
> You can do this by using Reply-To-List or Reply-All.
>