Re: GWindows and a future home for it

["Warren W. Gay VE3WWG" <ve3wwg@cogeco.ca>]

Ludovic Brenta wrote:
> Chris Humphries writes:
> 
>>A GUI library should just be for GUI stuff.
>>A DB library should just be for DB stuff.
> 
> I agree.
> 
> From what I read in this thread, GWindows.Database can be split away
> from GWindows, so that the issue of database is made orthogonal to the
> issue of the GUI - this is the Tao of Programming.
> 
> There are, to my knowledge, three free DB libraries in Ada: GNADE, APQ
> and GWindows.Database.  I don't know enough about all three to decide
> how much they overlap, but they certainly do.  I leave it as an
> exercise to the reader to decide if this is worth a vote :)

I am going to stick my neck out here to David's benefit without
actually looking at his Database support. Based upon what I have
seen from Delphi and even MFC's database support, you _do_ need
to integrate the two to some degree, if you want to reduce the
enormous amount of grunt work that is involved (Microsoft's MFC
approach uses a lot of C++ macro glue).

Yes, you can make the two totally separate, but this comes
at an incredible cost. It means that every time you bring up a screen full
of new column data, every stinken widget now must be coded for to
transfer from the query to the widget. When you want to save
changes, or save a new row of data, you have the reverse issue.
You must code for every stinken widget to get values from widgets
to the database for the update/insert operation. Very very messy
and time consuming. Surely there is a better, less error prone
way.

So I applaud efforts like David's, to make this a whole lot easier
and transparent. I never got into Delphi in a big way, but I could
see the advantages of their approach, from my past exploratory
experiences with it. Delphi did allow you to specify how to load
a combo control for example, from a database table. Simple to
talk about, but very gruntish to code for every widget.

So I would suggest to anyone that thinks that the GUI and DB can
be totally separate, to go and write a simple update screen with
15 or so I/O widgets containing values. You'll come away with that
experience thinking "there has to be an easier way". I believe that
is the direction that David is going (or has been). You should
reconsider what you are asking for. ;-)
-- 
Warren W. Gay VE3WWG
http://home.cogeco.ca/~ve3wwg