Hi Morten Fully understand that you want to do this with tracker and not suggesting we have to attack the other stuff simultaneously. I'm just at this stage talking about what we name this new creature. We shouldn't name it as if it was somehow only related to tracker, when in fact we are implementing a more generally very useful mechanism which we plan initially to use with tracker, but could and possibly should turn out to be useful for other things.
Bob On 7 December 2013 21:10, Morten Olav Hansen <[email protected]> wrote: > Bob, > > I kinda agree with that. From what you're saying, you want something more > along the lines of an idObject + attributes? I would like that also, for > all our types really, but I don't think that's what's happening now... it's > just the tracker module that is changing.. > > I would like us to even look at our aggregate datamodel this way, but > (correct me if I'm wrong) Lars said it would impact our performance quite > badly... not to mention that everything would need to be rewritten > > There are many benefits to at least doing this within the tracker domain, > especially with validation... > > -- > Morten > > > On Sat, Dec 7, 2013 at 3:52 PM, Bob Jolliffe <[email protected]>wrote: > >> I don't like this name at all :-( >> >> I am not sure there is anything about this new entity object which >> logically ties it to tracking. So for example such an object could serve >> equally well as a base class for an orgunit or other dhis2 metadata objects >> in any future refactoring. Isn't the key innovation that it is an object >> with minimal fixed properties? >> >> So I would be in favour of a more generic name which reflects more what >> this class will actually do rather than which area you see it its current >> specific use (things to be tracked). >> >> Something along the lines of DynamicEntity (or DynamicObject) or the like >> makes sense. Of course you can layer tracked things on top of that. >> >> A passing thought (which also relates to other "complex" objects whose >> attributes are spread across multiple tables) is that this might also be an >> opportunity to also address the problem of how to determine "lastUpdated" >> on such objects. Recall that this is an outstanding concern currently with >> orgunits making correct facility registry implementation impossiible. >> >> So perhaps again this is an opportunity to address the concerns in the >> current discussion in as general a way as possible so that we can try and >> reap benefits across the system. >> >> Bob >> >> >> On 6 December 2013 17:45, Morten Olav Hansen <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> >>> On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 1:56 PM, Jim Grace <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> TrackedEntity >>>>> >>>> +1 >>> >>> -- >>> Morten >>> >>> -- >>> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~dhis2-devs-core >>> Post to : [email protected] >>> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~dhis2-devs-core >>> More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp >>> >>> >> >
-- Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~dhis2-devs-core Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~dhis2-devs-core More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
