Re: [SL] Adding extra custom reports

[Christopher M. <chr...@gm...>]

On 11/5/06, Dieter Simader <dsi...@sq...> wrote:
> I even look at it and borrow the code if it is any
> good. Perhaps for a change I get to borrow someone else work instead of
> always being the other way around. Would be a first though.

 Yes, I can tell from SL's code. Dieter, check out CPAN, there is a
lot of stuff there that you could be taking advantage of. We've
replaced a lot of SL code with robust and mature CPAN modules - no
sense in re-inventing the wheel if you don't have to. Also, you're
more than welcome to take advantage of, and comment on any of our code
and/or changes.

> Doesn't it ever make one wonder why there is forks based on SQL-Ledger and
> not forks based on a fork of SQL-Ledger? Maybe there is just a tiny chance
> I am doing something right since forks aren't created from forks but from
> SQL-Ledger. ;)

 Heh. That's a bit of an odd perspective. I haven't heard of anyone
forking from a project because they were happy with it - quite the
opposite in fact. Deciding to fork is not something that most sane
people would do on a whim.  There are definitely some things you did
right, first to market is probably one, having a fairly full-featured
application another.

 I suspect that by the time ledgersmb hits 2.0, we will probably not
have any SL code it in anymore, or very little. We're moving as much
of the code as we can to CPAN modules where appropriate, re-factoring
most of the code structure, trying to separate UI from logic even
further, enhancing for security best-practices and restructuring the
database to use the features in Postgres (the trade-off being we've
decided to drop support for any other database). With core Postgres
developers as part of our fork, it would be insane for us to not take
full advantage of this resource.

Cheers,

Chris