Re: Trying to understand GNUe?

[Derek A. Neighbors]

Neil,

> I am new to GNUe, have read through the docs and am trying to get a
> handle on the GNUe system.  As part of this I have put together a
> drawing of the components that is probably real messed up.  I would
> appreciate it if someone would take a look at it and straighten me
> out.

Well its not too bad but somewhat messed up yes.  We use Dia for our
datamodeling.  We have some of the components diagrammed individually.
(We need to make these more visible)  We also have some packaging
diagrams to better help explain what a GNUe Application would look
like.  It is similar to this diagram but from a different view point. 
This is an ok start, but biggest gripe is that its not in dia so I cant
fix it. :)  If we can get it into Dia and get it fixed we can get it on
the web site and in cvs.

Here are some of the general problems I see. (btw: I really like the
effort so PLEASE dont be discouraged)

1. Data Access is incorrect.
  a.  You show a database being accessed by postgres via sql by ORB then
show CORBA and GEDI.
  b. It should be SQL DATABASE<--LIBGDA<--GEAS instead of
Database<--PostGRESSQL<--MICOORB<--CORBA<--GEDI.
  Reason:  With libgda we will be database independent so just database
will suffice.  ORB is redundant with CORBA but simply saying LIBGDA is
enough (if you want the transport or annotation could read this is a
CORBA "transport" between GEAS and LIBGDA.

2.  I think you have biz rules on wrong side of GEDI.
  a.  GEDI is now GEAS.  Sorry for the name change.
  b.  Move all Business* to other side.  Kill the CVS/XML portion.  
  Reason:  The clients will access GEAS API that will get the rules not
access the rules that gets GEAS. :)  CVS/XML dont belong, while XML and
CSV could be used for things they belong on lower level diagrams.

3.  Too many client applications shown.
  a.  GNUe Applications or Packaging is really another document.  Forms
Painter and Client I believe are the same thing, just painter was the
old name. 
  Reason:  GNUe application is kind of what you are describing.  I think
the packaging document helps with this.  Here you just want to show
reports and form client the two pieces of the application the user
really sees.  I am not sure what ICL is so would remove it.

4. EWOK isnt too bad how it sits.  I see more to it than this but that
would get into components not yet on this chart and not yet being
actively pursued.  Most notably a data pumping tool...

Hope this helps.  Also I think this is very simple representation that
will be a works in progress.  As we will probably at some point add
workflow, ldap, kerberos etc... but for now lets try to keep it sane. :)

I put a bunch of documents out in http://gnue.org/~dneighbo/gnue/dia/ 
most of them horribly out of date.  I put a 5 minute sample of this mail
minus EWOK as overview.png there.   I still dont like it completely as
there are some inaccuracies but its closer.  I think the
GNUePackaging.png and family is still relevant too.  I plan on workign
on some of this in more detail and incorporating into our documentation
as soon as I get time.

Derek Neighbors
GNU Enterprise
http://www.gnue.org
address@hidden