oship-dev team mailing list archive

[Tim Cook <timothywayne.cook@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Fri, 2010-08-06 at 15:04 -0300, Diego Manhães Pinheiro wrote:

>         
>         
> Starting from the assumption that OSHIP will help create applications
> more flexible and more interoperable, what difference from the
> framework meaning ? So, is it correct to say that we are creating a
> framework ? I'd like know your opinion about it.

Yes.  You can call it a framework. 
But also remember that I asked you to schedule in a time to move to
OSHIPpy on Launchpad because OSHIP is the umbrella. We also have a Java
and Ruby implementation in the works as well as space for a C++ and a
Lua version.   We also want to look  at using a more capable NoSQL
database like CouchDB or Riak.  So, that all implementations can use the
same persistence technologies.  But that all will come later.

>         
> I personally don't agree with this approach. I think If generate code,
> means that
> anyway you have to maintain it. If you have to maintain it, the goal
> of reduce the 
> complexity is lost.
> A insight : A constraint engine with a persistent configuration could
> also solve 
> without lose performance.

Okay.  The 'original' purpose was because the ADL was too time consuming
to parse.  But if you and your team can design an engine that will
process the XML Schema constraints (not fully defined yet) on the fly;
then we will go with that.   We can then do a one time conversion of the
ADL to MLHIM CCDs (XML Schemas) and be done with it.


> Thanks for your explanations, Tim. :)
> Coming back to actual problem, now I got it why the openehr namespace
> must be kept. 
> Do you mind change they using a new revision? I finished all
> conversions applied to the openehr modules, but using the wrong way.
> Just moving directories and using a simple regular expression I can
> change it so fast.

Do it!  :-)))

Thanks Diego.

Cheers,
Tim

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part