Re: [gnome-db] What DWI does [was Re: GnuCash page on GO site]

On Fri, 2004-03-05 at 04:39 +1300, Andrew Hill wrote:

> ok i'm gonna comment cause my projects are very similar to Lina's and 
> i've run into similar problems to building the nessary tools to rapidly 
> develop database applications for gnome. 
> 
> My approach is very similar but silighty different.
> developer builds sql database. (currently only postgresql fully 
> supported, libgda and mysql very partial support)
> glade xml is used to generate bond xml (http://bond.treshna.com)
> developer adds in sql statements and attachs code they want to app.
> reports can be written in papyrus (http://payrus.treshna.com)
> database application front end ready to go and can be deployed.
> 
> On Mon, Mar 01, 2004 at 10:17:18AM +0100, Rodrigo Moya was heard to remark:
> 
> >>http://dwi.sourceforge.net is the object framework I'm planning
> >>on using for the future gnucash core engine.
> >>
> >>    
> >>
> >what are the advantages of this over libgda?
> >could you ellaborate more please?
> >  
> >
> 
> This is a different to libgda.  dwi and bond are more higher up 
> interfaces than libgda.  libgda requires writting code, and you'll often 
> find yourself repeating the same tasks over and over again like 
> inserting and updating sql statements, dealing with default values etc 
> when you build a large db app.  libgda is a lot more powerful in some 
> ways cause its lower down but if you want to write a huge app in a short 
> amount of time its quicker and easier to manage your database objects 
> and forms as one in  glade and xml etc.  It comes down to what type of 
> application your writing/best tool for the job.
> 
right. The question is if, as bond/papyrus have tried to do, qof can be
changed to use libgda for the basic data access.

Then, as I said in a previous mail, we can see what things make sense
from it and either put them in libgda/libgnomedb/whatever, or keep them
in its current place.

If all this conversation is about sharing technology, then, we've got:
* libgda -> uniform data access to several data sources
* qof stuff -> built on top of libgda

That's what I'm saying. Is there any chance of this?

cheers