# Why QOF?

- Home
- Summary
- Data sharing
- Data queries
- Future direction
- Shared filesystems
- Moving objects
- Example of P2P
- Object-oriented SQL
- Application architecture
- Object/View/Controller
- Core Assumptions

## Summary:

Desktop application development is not particularly easy and desktop application development for multi-user, client-server apps is so hard that almost no one attempts these. In fact, this is the primary reason for the explosion of web applications: If you need to develop a multi-user, SQL-backed application, you can develop it orders of magnitude more quickly by using Apache and PHP (or Java) than you can by using Gnome or KDE. This is great for the web, but terrible for anyone wanting to develop distributed, multi-user desktop applications.

There are many reasons why this is so and there are many ways in which one can attempt to change this situation. One can boil the ocean with this type of discussion; I won't attempt to do that here. Instead, lets try to justify an approach like QOF in a broader Free Software framework.

### Data sharing

A number of applications become much more interesting to their users when they have access to large quantities of data, or are hooked into databases on the net in some way, or are multi-user or collaborative in some way. In fact, any large-data application is going to be multi-user, since having that much data is valuable and leads to a tremendous pressure to share. There's a huge number of apps that fit this profile: everything from shopping catalogs, where the store 'shares' the product data with the customer, to Bugzilla, where the bug status is 'shared' between developers and users, to p2p networks for sharing mp3/ogg files. Today, certain types of 'basic' sharing are still incredibly hard: for example, syncing the address book on my cell phone with the address book on my home computer with the address book on my work computer(s). Never mind sharing parts of my address book with friends. (See Pilot-QOF for an example of how QOF enables users to select parts of a Palm address book (amongst other databases) for export and sharing.)

### Data queries

What does one need to build that kind of application? Well, one needs at a minimum a query mechanism, so that the user can query, sort, report on and manipulate the data. Even good single-user apps need this ability: personal photo and music organizers will have this kind of interface, as well as address-books, etc. Blogging tools could benefit from a generalized query mechanism. P2P already has query built-in, although its of a rather poor sort. Indeed, these types of find & query considerations are driving the Gnome Storage project (with whom we'd like to collaborate). They also show up as ideas in Microsoft's next-generation Longhorn operating system (patent encumbered; however, this project, QOF and the DWI project are prior art.)

QOF also has support for `INSERT` SQL commands to populate the data set (a QofBook).

Top

## Sharing Technologies, Querying and the Future of Programming

### Shared or global filesystem

One traditional solution to the sharing problem has been the idea of a shared or even global filesystem. This was the original vision behind NFS and Microsoft Windows Workgroups (SMB/Samba file shares). Global filesystem attempts include AFS (the Andrew File System, from the early 90's), DFS (from the late 90's) and Coda (a free/open solution). The local solutions, NFS and Samba, don't / can't scale to a global level. The global filesystems haven't really worked out either, with one grand exception: the web itself ( i.e. HTTP) is in many ways filesystem-like. But the success of the web is not due to its filesystem-like aspects, but rather due to the existence of a common document viewer: the web browser. Shared file systems, though better than nothing, have one major pitfall: they still don't make writing multi-user apps easy. Two users updating the same file at the same time is a recipe for disaster. The two apps that are updating the same file at the same time don't know about each other and there is no native or built-in default that would let them find out.

### Physical movement of objects

Another older solution to the sharing problem is the idea behind RPC, CORBA, SOM/DSOM, COM/DCOM and more recently, SOAP and the Microsoft .net frameworks. Here, the focus of sharing is actually about the physical movement of objects (OOP objects) from one system to another. Each of these technologies in some way enable the programmer to touch or work with objects on some other, remote system. However, as most programmers eventually seem to figure out, its bitchingly hard to use CORBA (or its cousins) and there seems to be relatively little payoff for the effort. Great: now one has distributed, networked objects, but so what? One still doesn't have persistence (which is the strength of file systems) and one doesn't have searchability (which is what databases offer) and one doesn't have much in the way of security (witness Microsoft's Virus Apocalypse).

### P2P file sharing

The latest file-sharing technology is 'P2P', the peer-to-peer networks. Unfortunately, MP3 trading has given them a bad name. The other problem is that P2P doesn't really provide security (would you use P2P to share your financial information with your bank? How about medical records? Didn't think so). P2P networks are also terrible at sharing 'objects' in the sense of OOP objects, they're useless for that. They have no built-in versioning for the files they do share: you can't do SCCS/CVS/Subversion/BitKeeper on top of P2P, even though that would be useful. Curiously, though, P2P networks do have the one true important feature that makes them popular: P2P query. You can issue a query to find the one thing that you really wanted and P2P will run that query in a distributed, decentralized way, across a panalopy of servers. How else can you find that rare MP3 that you wanted? Unfortunately, none of the P2P query protocols are as rich or as powerful as SQL.

As P2P illustrates, what's old is new: querying is central to sharing and to multi-user applications. In fact, most true multi-user apps are (and have been, from the start, for many decades) based on database technology if not SQL proper. This is because SQL can scale to extremely large datasets without loosing the ability for a user to focus in on one or two records. SQL came with a kind-of browser: the SQL command line. Though pale in comparison to the web browser, it did allow you to look where you wanted, to find the needle in the haystack. SQL is scalable and it can be browsed: these are the same strengths that made the web possible.

Thus it is natural to think of querying and databases when thinking of the future of multi-user applications. What hasn't yet been done or fully explored is the possibility of a global database: a database that is accessibly from everywhere in the world (much as http is), but is decentralized, searchable and managed by the users who use it, much as P2P is. There are many people, ideas and technology trends that are pushing towards a global database, but it hasn't happened yet. The convergence between computers, phones and TV's is pushing in this direction, but the games have only begun.

### Object oriented SQL

SQL, however, has its drawbacks. Most programmers don't know SQL and a large portion of them blanch and run in the opposite direction when they hear those three letters. Actually, writing applications that mix SQL into the program logic is not that hard ... at first. In fact, its quite easy. The problem arises when one has to port to a different database and one discovers that SQL is not terribly well standardized. The next problem comes when one wants to add or change tables. Programmers typically discover that the SQL code they are maintaining is not modular and sometimes very poorly structured. Object oriented programming and SQL weren't really made for each other, although object oriented databases do help.

In summary, the future of desktop programming lies with a broadly powerful query engine, coupled to persistent OOP-style objects that are distributed, decentralized, secure, protectable and versionable. This is the true 'convergence': not that of TV's, phones and computers, but the convergence of the best features of P2P, SQL, file systems, version control and the web, which, to the programmer, looks like nothing more than 'persistent objects', and is no harder to 'use' than garbage collection is for a Java programmer. This is the grand vision of what desktop programming should be.

Top

## Application Architecture

The QOF architecture, as it currently stands, is taken from the vantage point of Free Software development and explicitly ignores commercial/proprietary technologies. It is also somewhat focused on the specific case study of the applications that currently benefit most from QOF: GnuCash, GnoTime and Pilot-QOF. But this is the good news: QOF has evolved through trial-by-fire, in the forge of real-world application development, rather than through the the over-arching, abstract principles discussed above.

### Object/View/Controller

The starting point for the architecture is a modified "Object/View/Controller" paradigm. The GUI acts as a controller, controlling and manipulating a set of objects in local system memory. The objects in system memory are a cache, or mirror, or local copy of data in a (remote) database. Two technical problems immediately present themselves. One is how to connect the GUI to the objects in an easy-to-develop, easy-to-maintain style. The second is how to do the same in keeping the local copy of the objects in sync with the database. In particular, how keep them in sync with the data in other (remote) objects that other users might be manipulating. One possible answer and that is the answer used today by GnuCash, is to design the GUI with the Glade graphical GUI designer and hook it up to some C (could have been C++, or even other language) objects. The objects are in turn loaded from either a file, or fetched from an SQL database.

I (would) like to have my apps be natively multi-user. This means dealing with all of the locking and caching problems that multi-user presents. Multi-user also means that one needs to have a centralized data storage location: a database and by presumption, an SQL database. Thus, if one wants to have C objects, one needs to shim them onto SQL somehow. Today, for me, this is a labor-intensive, manual process. In the commercial software world, there are tools and companies that have systems that make this a lot easier and even automatic; but there aren't any in the Free Software world.

After writing the shims between the first half-dozen objects and their equivalent SQL tables, it becomes painfully apparent that the process can be mostly automated, as the shims consist of mostly common code. Unfortunately, the automation of this process is easier said than done. At first, it seems that all one needs is to specify a mapping or 'dictionary' from an SQL table field to an object setter/getter. In practice, its more subtle than that. Nonetheless one of the goals of QOF is to provide a fairly generic dictionary or mapping mechanism. To the best of my knowledge, in the Free Software/Open Source world, there is only one system that maps databases to objects and back: DWI/DUI. However, that system is still rather primitive. At least one goal is to have QOF integrate with and expand on that function.

## Core Assumptions

The QOF project and the above comments, make some core assumptions that are questionable and need to be addressed. These are discussed below.

- Why C? The problem of lambda.
- Why C (or C++)? Why not a better language, without lambda?
- Why C (or C++)? What about garbage collection?
- Why not go directly from GUI to SQL and back?
- Why not use GLib GObjects?

- ### Why C? The problem of lambda.

  The C language has many problems, the most serious of which is the lack of lambda. I know you're thinking "What in the world is lambda? I've been programming for years, I've never needed one." Well, the joke's on you. Lambda is a way of declaring a function by binding some (but not all) arguments to a different function. Lambda allows you to pass functions as if they were arguments, without having to fix the type. The lack of lambda in C deeply affects how people program and design in C. One can sort-of work around the missing lambda, but not very well. One stunt is to code in an object-oriented fashion. This helps because an object method implicitly drags along its "missing arguments" in the form of a reference to the instance (the 'this' or 'self' pointer). Unfortunately, this makes object-oriented languages strongly typed (C++ and Java are both strongly typed). Strong typing makes it hard to work with "generic", unknown types. The work-around for this is the "Master Base Class" design pattern: One creates a master base class and then every other object must inherit from it. For example, in GTK, the master base class is GObject. In Motif, it was Widget. The selection of candidate bases classes for Java and C++ is dizzying.

  By having a master base class, one can write quasi-generic algorithms because one is guaranteed that everything that inherited from the base class can be treated as if it were really the base class itself. So, for example, `some_func (Base *b);` can be applied to any derived object and so `some_func` is more-or-less generic: it can act on any type (as long as that type inherits from `Base`). Of course, this falls apart if one has multiple base classes (multiple inheritance), or if ints, floats are your base type. The object-orientation of Java and C++ does not go down that deep.

  So the other way to work around a missing lambda and write generic algorithms, is to introduce the idea of "type templates". Templates are now a part of C++. By using templates in C++, one can write generic, type-independent algorithms. Unfortunately, templates are hard to use, template code is hard to read and write and, worst of all, templates "bubble" through. In other words, if `func_a()` calls `func_b()` which calls `func_c()` and `func_c()` can handle generic types (because it is a template), the only way to expose this is to also make `func_a()` and `func_b()` also be templates. So even if `func_a()` and `func_b()` had no reason to be templates, they were forced to become so. This is "bubbling" and bubbling is the Achilles heel of templates; its what makes C++ templates so darned hard to use. The "bubbling" happens all because C++ doesn't support lambda. Oh well.

  The way C avoids the missing-lambda problem is by being weakly-typed. One casts things to `(void *)` and passes those around. Take a look at typical GTK/Gnome code: `gpointer` is everywhere. Its in the arguments for signals. Its what glib `GList`'s and `GArray`'s store and on and on ... of course, you can imagine the kind of type-casting trouble this can get you into, which is why GTK has this incredible run-time dynamic type-casting system built into it.

  So, to answer the question "Why C? Why not a Better Language?" Because C++, Java, Python, Eiffel, C# still don't have a lambda. One still has to use the "master base class design pattern", or bubbling templates, or `(void *)` pointers and run-time type-checking/type-casting. These other languages still don't rescue you, they don't offer any advantage over C in regard to this deep, fundamental issue.

  (Off-topic: try googling for the words "lambda" and your favorite programming language. You will be surprised and intrigued by the results.) Addendum: at least one pop lanaguage, perl, does have lambda. All I can say is that lambda in perl is currently not central to perl or to the style of perl programming.

- ### Why C (or C++)? Why not a better language, without lambda?

  Lets try again. The C/C++ language has many problems. One of the most serious of these problems is the lack of "object introspection". Without object introspection, it makes it hard to make objects persistent; it also makes it hard to send objects over the net, because "marshaling/unmarshaling" needed to do the RPC (or XML-RPC) gets hard. When a system has "object introspection", you can ask some unknown, type-any object a question about what its made of. It can then respond: "Gee, well, I'm made of three floats, two ints and some character strings". You can then ask it for all of its pieces and jam them into a file for safe-keeping, or "marshal" them into a socket to ship it over the net. (You "unmarshal" them at the other end of the socket, thus creating a copy of the object in some far away place). With introspection, you can make and copy objects without having to know in advance (at compile time) what they are. Note that GLib GObjects have introspection built in: its done with `g_object_class_list_properties()`.

  So, why not use another language, one that can do introspection and has object factories built into it? For example, Java, python, C#? The answer is that introspection, while useful, is far too inflexible to use for object persistence and for RPC-type work. The deep problem is that introspection doesn't deal with the problem of versioning. Say I have object version 1.0. It consisted of three floats and two ints. I stuck it into a file and forgot about it. Years later, I try to open that file with the new improved version 2.0 software: but object version 2.0 has five floats and six ints. Whoops. Ka-boom. In order to be backwards-compatible, or forwards-compatible, you need to deal with the versioning problem in some flexible way. Introspection, by itself, is not flexible enough.

  The XML world tries to deal with this by using schema's/DTD's. It is understood that the DTD describes what to expect in your object; thus, by knowing the DTD, you know how to parse the XML file. However, when you are writing your application in Java, Python, C# (or C or C++), I can guarantee you that your internal objects are at best a weak mirror of what's in the DTD. Your objects might be similar to the XML input, but hardly the same. If your app is a web app, with an SQL backend, are your objects identical to the SQL tables? I doubt it. In other words, here you are, coding in this great language with object factories and type-any and object introspection, but you aren't actually using these amazing whiz-bang features when you interface to your SQL or XML or XML-RPC.

  To summarize: the mapping between the run-time objects and the network/file/storage objects is not one-to-one. A language with introspection doesn't save your bottom: its not enough: one really does need to specify how to map object fields to database fields because the mapping is never 1-to-1. This remains a difficult and tedious task for the programmer. These other languages don't offer an improvement over C. One of the stated design goals of DWI is to provide an explicit but easy-to-use, flexible way of mapping network object or database objects to the run-time objects that applications use and those, in turn to the GUI dialogs and panels that the application presents to the user.

  (P.S. Totally off-topic, but I sometimes get the feeling that the XML standards people are trying to reinvent scheme/lisp without being consciously aware that this is what they are doing. Yet the signs are clear.)

- ### Why C (or C++)? What about garbage collection?

  OK, I cave. Yes, it sure would be nice to have garbage collection built into the language.

- ### Why not go directly from GUI to SQL and back?

  Data-Freedom.org covers the basics of "database-driven", "program-driven" and "data-centric" programming, together with an example model.

  Designing a GUI directly on top of SQL is the 'database-driven' programming style. It has short-comings, the most notable of which is the inability (or difficulty of) implementing application behavior. One can all too easily get sucked into writing SQL triggers and stored procedures. That's bad. Note, however, that much of what a typical GUI application does can, in fact, be specified by a declarative language; an algorithmic, procedural language, such as C, really is not required for the vast majority of the application guts. The realization that most of what a real-world application does can be accomplished declaratively is the driving force behind DWI.

- ### Why not use GLib GObjects?

  Well, in the narrowest sense, QOF already does: there is a QOF to GObject glue layer and GLib GObjects (including GTK objects) are searchable with QOF. More broadly, the problem with GObjects is that they don't support unique object id's and they don't support versioning. Now, I suppose we could build those on top of GObjects ... and maybe we will someday. But QOF evolved in parallel, independently from GObjects and thus there's overlap of ideas. Parts of QOF date back to 1997 and thus the parallel evolution is in part because GObjects didn't exist back then. Maybe there might be some convergence, maybe, someday.

- Why not UML? What's UML got to do with it?

- Why not XUL? What's XUL got to do with it?

Top

... Unfinished ... Draft ...

See also:

- Java, Mono, or C++? Thoughts on the future of open source desktop development by Havoc Pennington.
- Gnome Storage is a project that looks at the query problem for desktop applications.
- The Next Few Decades of Computing takes a similarly broad view of programming interfaces.

Linas Vepstas <linas@linas.org> July 2003, April, June 2004

Updated: Neil Williams <linux@codehelp.co.uk> May 2005.

The copyright licensing notice below applies to this text.

Copyright © 2003,2004 Linas Vepstas

Copyright © 2005, 2006 Neil Williams

Permission is granted to copy, distribute, and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation; with no Invariant Sections, with no Front-Cover Texts, and with no Back-Cover Texts. In installed versions, the licence can be found in the copyright file.