Chris Shoemaker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I haven't given this a lot of thought, but don't you *need* both
> storage schema concurrently in order to provide forward compatibility?
> I.e. read using old schema, convert, write using new schema.
Not necessarily.. It all depends on what the storage requirements are
for Recurrence and how that compares to the storage requirements for
FS. From where I sit the storage requirements are >95% in parity,
which implies you could just re-use the existing schema and instead of
loading it into a FS you load it into a Recurrence.. And then just
replace /ALL/ uses of FS with Recurrence everywhere in the source
tree.
For the few things that Recurrence does that FS does not, I think
that would work fine -- the new features would be new attributes
and an older FS implementation wouldn't understand them anyways.
I see little reason to make two full xml translation objects when
you can just make a small modification to one parser/generator object.
This just implies a merging of FS into Recurrence... Which is what
I've been asking for all along.
-derek
--
Derek Atkins, SB '93 MIT EE, SM '95 MIT Media Laboratory
Member, MIT Student Information Processing Board (SIPB)
URL: http://web.mit.edu/warlord/ PP-ASEL-IA N1NWH
[EMAIL PROTECTED] PGP key available
_______________________________________________
gnucash-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.gnucash.org/mailman/listinfo/gnucash-devel
