On Tue, 2001-09-25 at 21:54, Rob Brown-Bayliss wrote:
> On Wed, 2001-09-26 at 15:00, Linas Vepstas wrote:
>
> > What I keep trying to say is that most people should *not* look at the
> > backends at all. Its clear that we still need to implement one or two
> > more, so that we can really have a generic server. But ordinary
> > 'users' should be coding to the engine api. The backends are supposed
> > to be off-limits, and have a kind-of special relationship with the
> > engine.
>
> Having an xml-rpc server (or I guess in this case it's a xml-rpc client
> in place of a gui client) sitting on a machine, talking directly to the
> engine would allow incorporating gnucash into other apps... for example
> (close to my heart) a POS system could use gnucash as the accounting
> system, leaving it free to deal with sales and stock management.
>
> The site would then stil be able to choose either a postgres or file
> based back end. The advantage as I see it of an xml-rpc connection is
> every language would then magiacally work with gnucash, rather than
> messing about wraping the current engine calls every time they change.
Yes, precisely. XML-RPC is definitely too heavyweight for
some applications, but for low-bandwidth needs, it is a
very flexible (and simple) solution.
dave
PGP signature
