The work to expose rules as calculations was done during the sprint though there might me a few changes to me made in line with your concerns.
As mike put it, these additions don't in any way impose the new design to a consumer of the next release of logic but rather adds support for those who wish to use the new design and wrapper classes, it up to you the as the chica team to go with best suits you, We are going to discuss your 2 concerns during this week's design call. Wyclif On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 2:02 PM, Tammy Dugan <[email protected]> wrote: > I finally had a chance to look at all the new logic code. First I need to > vent about a couple of things and then I will try to be constructive: > > * It took us MONTHS to get the last rewrite of logic to work correctly > with openmrs 1.7.x and the chica code > * We just got it working at the end of October 2011 and Openmrs started > rewriting it again in November 2011. > * The first round of design calls for the logic rewrite happened in > mid-November. I had a two week old baby and did not have time to deal with > it. > * Looking back through dev emails, the logic discussion ended at the end > of November and picked up in mid February > * In mid-February was the first time I saw anything about Calculation. > * On March 5th there was a dev list email from Darius that he and Mike > would be here for one day and wanted to meet with me and some other people > * I was still on part-time maternity leave but rearranged my schedule with > one days notice to meet with them > * When I met with them, I struggled to understand the logic design that I > had not looked at since I had only been back at work for 2 weeks after > maternity leave > * In that meeting, Darius asked us if we could own logic. Basically we > were supposed to own something that got completely redesigned that we had > little or no input into the design that didn't make any sense to us and > stuff that had been fixed repeatedly was broken yet again. > > Based on all this, you can see why I might be a little irritated. Yes, I > know you tried to include me in the design but you knew I was pretty much > unavailable. Yes, I could have said no when Darius said we should own logic > but I felt backed into a corner. There was a breakdown in communication on > several fronts. If I would have know we were expected to own logic, I would > have said no to the rewrite to begin with. > > Venting done. Now to be constructive: > > * The name Calculation is a horrible name for that object. It doesn't > calculate anything! Why not call it "RuleDefinition" since it defines the > properties of the rule and then call CalculationEvaluator "Rule"? Why was > Rule split into two objects anyway? Why not just add a > getParameterDefinitionSet method to the rule interface? Why would you ever > want some object that doesn't evaluate anything being called by logic? What > is the point in that? > * I think the strongly typed results and ParameterDefinitionSets are nice > changes > * Logic cannot hit the database for every token lookup. This is an > unacceptable performance hit for a system like chica. The tokens need to be > cached. > * CalculationEvaluators and Calculations should not be singletons. Making > them singletons is non-thread safe and requires special programming that is > not intuitive to the naive programmer. A new instance should be created > each time. > > > For a naive programmer, I think the new design complicates things even > more than before and makes it even less accessible for developers to > contribute. > > > In summary, if the chica group is going to own logic, we would be willing > to own the 0.5 logic that we worked so hard to getting working. We are not > willing to put the time and effort in to get the new calculation version of > logic working. > > > Thanks, > > Tammy > > > On 3/29/2012 11:29 AM, Michael Seaton wrote: > > Hi Tammy, > > Is this an issue in the Calculation module? Or is this an issue with how > logic is exposing itself to Calculation? Weren't you involved in the > coding changes that took place during the Sprint? That was meant to be for > you and the Chica team to contribute and own, not for anyone to impose on > you. > > It does seem we should cache calculation registrations in memory, we are > not doing this currently. But this shouldn't necessarily be an issue for > Chica, if it is going to the logic_token_registration table for it's own > purposes, should it? I don't really see how exposing Logic to Calculation > is a risk for you, as long as you continue to access Logic natively as you > always have and just provide a couple of adapter classes to expose it for > other via the Calculation module. > > Mike > > > On 03/29/2012 11:05 AM, Tammy Dugan wrote: > > There were two major issues that came up when reviewing the changes with > Wyclif, > > 1. Logic cannot hit the database for every token lookup. This is an > unacceptable performance hit for a system like chica. The tokens need to be > cached. > 2. Rules should not be singletons. Making them singletons is non-thread > safe and requires special programming that is not intuitive to the naive > programmer. A new instance should be created each time. > > > I also want to point out that we have fixed #2 twice already in previous > versions and now it needs to be fixed for a third time. Also, #1 was fixed > in the previous version and now has to be fixed again. It gets frustrating > that these same problems keeps getting reintroduced each time logic is > refactored and each time I have to make the case about why it should be > that way and we have to fix the problem. It is important when refactoring > to preserve the old behavior! > > Because of these issues, we have no immediate plans to update chica to use > the new version of logic with Calculations. It took us months to get things > working before and we just don't have the programming resources to do it > now or in the near future. > > Thanks, > > Tammy Dugan > > > On 3/29/2012 10:08 AM, Friedman, Roger (CDC/CGH/DGHA) (CTR) wrote: > > It appears that trunk produces 0.5.3 which includes Calculation, last > branch is 0.5.1 which is not mavenized, 0.5.2 is mavenized, can it be a > branch even if not released?**** > > ** ** > > *From:* [email protected] [mailto:[email protected] <[email protected]>] *On > Behalf Of *Wyclif Luyima > *Sent:* Friday, March 23, 2012 3:53 PM > *To:* [email protected] > *Subject:* [OPENMRS-DEV] Calculation sprint wrap up**** > > ** ** > > Hi everyone,**** > > ** ** > > For the past 2 weeks, we have been having a sprint on the calculation > module plus making logic and reporting to expose themselves as > calculations. We managed to get all the 27 tickets specific to the module > done by Wednesday. Some work has been done to retrofit logic and reporting > to be exposed as calculations, i went through the changes in logic with > Tammy and Win this afternoon, Tammy had some interesting points of > discussion which i believe she will send on the dev list.**** > > ** ** > > In general, the code looks pretty good and i think we are ready for its > 1.0 release which could be in the next 1 -2 weeks, apparently we have to > wait for final high level reviews from Darius and Burke as contributors to > its design to confirm if it is actually what they envisioned.**** > > ** ** > > The sprinter turn up was good which included the core developers, Mike and > Mykola, thank you all for your relentless work.**** > > ** ** > > Have a great weekend.**** > > ** ** > > Wyclif**** > > ** ** > ------------------------------ > > Click here to > unsubscribe<[email protected]?body=SIGNOFF%20openmrs-devel-l>from > OpenMRS Developers' mailing list > **** > ------------------------------ > Click here to > unsubscribe<[email protected]?body=SIGNOFF%20openmrs-devel-l>from > OpenMRS Developers' mailing list > > > -- > Tammy Dugan > CHIRDL Technical Lead > Children's Health Services Research > IU School of Medicine > > ------------------------------ > Click here to > unsubscribe<[email protected]?body=SIGNOFF%20openmrs-devel-l>from > OpenMRS Developers' mailing list > > ------------------------------ > Click here to > unsubscribe<[email protected]?body=SIGNOFF%20openmrs-devel-l>from > OpenMRS Developers' mailing list > > > -- > Tammy Dugan > CHIRDL Technical Lead > Children's Health Services Research > IU School of Medicine > > ------------------------------ > Click here to > unsubscribe<[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:[email protected]?body=SIGNOFF%20openmrs-devel-l]
