dhis2-devs team mailing list archive

[Lars Helge Øverland <larshelge@xxxxxxxxx>]

Ok maybe i was unreasonably blaming you for this, sorry about that.
Including dataset in the exchange format for completeness and locking
purposes is fine and makes sense. Its the idea of directly linking datavalue
to dataset on the persistence side for tracking purposes i am against. Lars
On 16 Feb 2011 13:48, "Jo Størset" <storset@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Den 16. feb. 2011 kl. 22.07 skrev Lars Helge Øverland:
>
>> Ola's point here is important
>
> Agree.
>
>> and that's why it is wrong and ambiguous to include the dataset on the
datavalueset like Jo has implemented it:
>
> I anything is "wrong and ambiguous" it is inherited from the design
already there, it's not something I'm implementing. And it is certainly not
something that comes from including a dataset identifier on *POSTED*
datavaluesets.
>
>> A data element can appear in multiple datasets. So there is no guarantee
that a data value is coming from data set a since it was received from a
datavalueset b. A datavalue might very well be subsequently updated from any
number of other data set/datavalueset. So a datavalue can be added from a
dataset a, updated from a dataset b, updated again from a dataset c... Where
would you say it comes from?
>
> I would say when the user has just edited and posted the form for dataset
A it comes from dataset A. Do you seriously mean to say that that is
ambiguous while *guessing* is unambigous? DataSet A might be locked while
dataSet B is not. You are saying that guessing what datavalueset to check
for locking on is *the right way*, while knowing is wrong? I mean,
seriously... It's not that there aren't plenty of real concerns here, this
is just sour grapes.
>
>> And if we had a one-to-one relationship between data element and dataset
it would be unnecessary to add the dataset to the datavalueset since it
could be derived from data element. I was trying to explain this before this
was commited but it was ignored.
>
> And of course everyone obviously agrees.. if you have a one-to-one
relation you can the deduce one from the other. But we don't, and if we had
we wouldn't have this discussion, so then the point is rather mute, wouldn't
you say?
>
>> That said I don't have anything against groping datavalues in the
exchange format to save space, which is a different question.
>
>> The dataset thing works quite well and lets not complicate this more than
necessary. If users one day require improved tracking of datavalues lets
deal with it then.
>
> k
>
> Jo