dhis2-devs team mailing list archive

[Bob Jolliffe <bobjolliffe@xxxxxxxxx>]

On 16 February 2011 21:23, Lars Helge Øverland <larshelge@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 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

And you are right to be against that.  But if not the dataset then we
are short of something else ... :-)  Whether it's important or not is
another question.

>
> 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
>