I'm curious to know how we will model attributes on this tracked entity. I think we should open the discission up to more people. It's not like these kinds of changes will come soon anyways.
Maybe it should be modelled as a new kind of 'idObject' with attributes.. If so, the name tracked entity is completely wrong. A tracked entity would need something that sets it apart from idObject + attributes. Maybe we should simply use the name Entity. On Dec 7, 2013 10:53 PM, "Bob Jolliffe" <[email protected]> wrote: > 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
