dhis2-devs team mailing list archive

[Lars Helge Øverland <larshelge@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 7:58 AM, Jo Størset <storset@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Thanks for the heads-up, Lars, that's what I hoped for :) I'll try to make
> a first-cut then. And thanks to everyone for the feedback, it has at least
> has cleared up things a bit in my head.
>
> Den 18. feb. 2011 kl. 01.58 skrev Lars Helge Øverland:
>
> > I would prefer having dxf as root but if you really really want to have
> isolated datavalusets I guess we can pipe the message through an xslt and
> end up with dxf since the datavalueset part can be similar.
>
> If we think datavalueSets are workable for a future dxf, it is enough to
> put it in the new dxf version namespace (what would we want that to be,
> btw?). I don't really see the advantage of a wrapper for the "post
> datavalueset" case, so I'd like to keep it simple if this isn't an blocking
> preference :) We should easily enough be able to accept receiving both
> wrapped and not, though. Would that cover your preference? It would probably
> require a little bit of consideration and it should be easy enough to add
> later, so I don't think I'll use time on it right now.
>

This is just fine with me.


>
> > The important thing for me is that we have one parser. We will see enough
> complexity through maintenance of new minor/major versions of the
> format/parser and I would really like to only have one of these things to
> maintain:)
>
> Yes, I tried saying something about this in my answer to Bob. There are
> always the chance that this strategy doesn't work out as good as hoped, but
> testing it with real code in smaller use cases first should at least make
> things a bit easier to evaluate (and in the worst case reversible). And as
> long as we think the new xml format will be ok..
>

Yes I also share the performance concern, but also _think_ that persistence
will be the bottleneck. The only way to find out is to test it...