[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Future of LedgerSMB: Ideas and RFC
- Subject: Re: Future of LedgerSMB: Ideas and RFC
- From: Chris Travers <..hidden..>
- Date: Thu, 19 May 2011 11:59:21 -0700
On Thu, May 19, 2011 at 11:49 AM, Luke <..hidden..> wrote:
> I don't know if it would. I haven't seen it in action, so don't know what
> its capabilities are, nor how far it goes to replacing what's running.
> It doesn't sound like it would be able to make database changes any more
> likely, and I think at least some of the moving forward will require them.
> If you are stating categorically that there are no schema changes we can
> make without significantly altering the user experience, in ways that are
> more than adding features with addons would do, and/or that we can't do
> any incremental schema changes, then maybe addons will be sufficient.
I think that the limitation would be on replacing the current schema.....
However, new versions could be developed parallel, for example, take
the template transaction addon (svn
This includes what is essentially an embryo of what I would hope the
basic structure of 2.0's financial transaction schema would be. We
can do this because template transactions never show up on financial
reports. This means that when we are ready to replace the financial
engine, we already have a working schema and routines for saving
Right now that module does not do everything that would be needed for
a future version's financial schema... It doesn't handle invoices
with parts attached for example. But for now you can save AR/AP
transactions and journal entries in a new schema which will eventually
get more stuff pushed to it.
Does this make sense?