Lets plan on having a discussion today about this on the design call at 2pm. We can write up the solutions (and new questions) for Tammy to read offline.
Ben On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 2:21 PM, Dugan, Tammy Marie <[email protected]>wrote: > I am on maternity leave and have my hands pretty full with a two week old > and a two year old. If you have any specific questions, please feel free to > email me. Email is a lot easier for me right now than phone. > > Thanks, > > Tammy Dugan > > Quoting Michael Seaton <[email protected]>: > > Yes, I will be there and looking forward to talking about this. >> >> Mike >> >> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Ben Wolfe >> Sent: Tuesday, November 15, 2011 3:14 AM >> To: openmrs-devel-l@LISTSERV.**IUPUI.EDU<[email protected]> >> Subject: Re: [OPENMRS-DEV] The future of Logic >> >> Would it be possible for folks to join tomorrow the 16th at 2pm EST? >> I fear that some people will be missing next Wednesday due to the US >> holiday on Thursday the 24th. >> >> Tammy? Dave? Mike? Darius? Burke? Roger? Win? Beuller? >> >> https://wiki.openmrs.org/**display/RES/Design+Forum<https://wiki.openmrs.org/display/RES/Design+Forum> >> >> Ben >> On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 8:55 PM, Burke Mamlin >> <[email protected]<**mailto:[email protected]**>> wrote: >> Can we enumerate what we want from the simplified logic service? >> >> * Existing logic engine can be implemented as an optional module >> without too much trouble. >> * Strongly instead of loosely typed results. >> * Support for parameters. >> * ... >> >> Do we want to support an index date (i.e., avoid assuming today's date)? >> >> Don't we want to forego tokens? Or are we assuming that consumers of >> logic know which rule provider to consult (which may or may not use >> tokens)? If the consumer needs to know which provider to consult and >> that provider will presumably be handling the evaluation, then what >> purpose does the logic service serve? Alternatively, rule providers >> could be registered with the logic service and then consumers could >> come to the logic service with a token (i.e., not need to know the >> provider). >> >> I'm assuming that we'll defer caching & criteria implementations to >> the various forms of logic (at least for now). >> >> What's the purpose of LogicContext now? In the original design, >> LogicContext served a few purposes: (1) proxy for all data requests >> by rules, (2) provide a context for evaluations ? index date & >> >> parameters ? that could be stacked for recursion, (3) context for >> caching results, and (4) an abstraction so that the same rule could >> be run against a patient or cohort. If we aren't using logic context >> for any of these, do we need to maintain LogicContext at this stage? >> >> Looking forward to the design call. >> >> Cheers, >> >> -Burke >> >> On Wed, Nov 9, 2011 at 10:23 PM, Michael Seaton >> <[email protected]<mailto:mseato**[email protected] <[email protected]>>> wrote: >> Hi all, >> >> I wanted to pick up a thread on the future of Logic that we spent >> some time discussing during the Developers Forum on October >> 27<https://wiki.openmrs.org/x/**5oamAQ<https://wiki.openmrs.org/x/5oamAQ> >> >. >> >> >> The overall consensus on the call was that "Logic is too complicated. >> We wish there were a simpler implementation, that were easier to >> adapt to individual needs. We wish it were more rigorously tested, >> including performance testing". >> >> Anyone that cares about preserving Logic as it currently exists, or >> wants to see it change in a specific way, please read further >> >> Specific users of Logic have communicated the following needs: >> >> * Tammy and her team require more control over the current Logic >> >> implementation, and better testing around it, so that future upgrades >> do not cause serious bugs and performance degradation >> * Win and Tammy need implementations of Logic that are optimized >> >> for running lots of rules for individual patients at a time >> * Mike needs an implementation of Logic that is optimized for >> >> running a single rule for lots of patients at a time as well >> * Mike wants to be able to choose to not use the existing Logic >> >> implementation in favor of an implementation provided by the >> Reporting module >> To accomplish this, the following high-level refactoring steps are >> being considered: >> >> * Reduce and simplify the number of interfaces and interface >> >> methods that Logic exposes in OpenMRS core >> * De-couple the existing Logic Module in such a way that it is one >> >> of many possible "Rule Providers" that can plug into this >> lighter-weight core framework >> * Remove, if possible and practical, the need to have a "required" >> >> Logic module installed >> Specifically, we are considering an approach that would reduce the >> core Logic interfaces to something like: >> interface LogicContext; >> >> interface Result; (classes DateResult, NumberResult, ListResult...) >> >> interface Rule { >> Set<RuleParameterInfo> getParameterInfo(); >> Class<? extends Result> getReturnType(); >> Result evaluate(Integer patientId, Map<String, Object> parameters, >> LogicContext context); >> } >> >> interface LogicService { >> public Result evaluate(Rule rule, Patient patient, Map<String, >> Object> parameters, LogicContext context); >> public Map<Integer, Result> evaluate(Rule rule, Cohort cohort, >> Map<String, Object> parameters, LogicContext context); >> } >> I would like for this to spur the following potential activities: >> >> * Give anyone who has not yet been aware of these discussions, or >> >> who does not agree with this approach, an opportunity to weigh in and >> get involved in the process >> * Make a plan to put this topic onto one or more future Design >> >> Forum calls, in order to agree upon the revised design, make tickets, >> and establish an owner for moving it forward. >> * Publicize when this Design Forum will occur so that interested >> >> parties can be involved as desired >> Thanks! >> Mike >> >> >> ______________________________**__ >> Click here to >> unsubscribe<mailto:LISTSERV@**LISTSERV.IUPUI.EDU<[email protected]> >> ?body=**SIGNOFF%20openmrs-devel-l> from OpenMRS Developers' mailing >> >> list >> >> ______________________________**__ >> Click here to >> unsubscribe<mailto:LISTSERV@**LISTSERV.IUPUI.EDU<[email protected]> >> ?body=**SIGNOFF%20openmrs-devel-l> from OpenMRS Developers' mailing >> >> list >> >> ______________________________**__ >> Click here to >> unsubscribe<mailto:LISTSERV@**LISTSERV.IUPUI.EDU<[email protected]> >> ?body=**SIGNOFF%20openmrs-devel-l> from OpenMRS Developers' mailing >> list >> >> ______________________________**___________ >> >> To unsubscribe from OpenMRS Developers' mailing list, send an e-mail >> to [email protected] with "SIGNOFF openmrs-devel-l" in the >> body (not the subject) of your e-mail. >> >> [mailto:LISTSERV@LISTSERV.**IUPUI.EDU <[email protected]> >> ?body=SIGNOFF%**20openmrs-devel-l] >> >> > ______________________________**___________ > > To unsubscribe from OpenMRS Developers' mailing list, send an e-mail to > [email protected] with "SIGNOFF openmrs-devel-l" in the body > (not the subject) of your e-mail. > > [mailto:LISTSERV@LISTSERV.**IUPUI.EDU <[email protected]> > ?body=SIGNOFF%**20openmrs-devel-l] > _________________________________________ To unsubscribe from OpenMRS Developers' mailing list, send an e-mail to [email protected] with "SIGNOFF openmrs-devel-l" in the body (not the subject) of your e-mail. [mailto:[email protected]?body=SIGNOFF%20openmrs-devel-l]
