Re: Call for testing experimental patch

[Tony Fraser <..hidden..>]

On Tue, 2006-09-19 at 11:34 -0700, Tony Fraser wrote:
> I wonder if the 'table' field should be renamed 'module'? See
> CA::all_transactions(), GL::all_transactions() and possibly (AR|
> AP)::all_transactions() to see where I'm going with this. We could
> drastically reduce the complexity of the enormous queries generated by
> these subroutines with a join to the new table and it would allow
> easier
> integration of add-on modules into the trial balance and GL
> transaction
> reports. 

On further investigation I think there's more to this than I first
thought. I'd still like to get rid of the hard coding of "ar", "ap" and
"gl" as the only tables included in these reports and the necessity to
patch CA.pm and GL.pm if you want to integrate new modules. I'm starting
to think it will be necessary to have both a "table" and a "module"
field in the new table although the "table" field will be a bit
redundant in a way.

This restriction is something that has bothered me about SQL Ledger for
several years but I've never really invested the time to come up with a
good solution, mainly because every time I dig into it I don't find a
way of doing it without drastically changing the schema.

I'm out of time to look at it further right now. I'll look at it again
soon. I'm guessing that this is one of those things that's not going to
make it into 1.1 and will have to wait for a future version.
 
-- 
Tony Fraser
..hidden..
Sybaspace Internet Solutions                        System Administrator
phone: (250) 246-5368                                fax: (250) 246-5398