Hello there, I suspect we are talking past each other to some degree here.
Firstly, there is no doubt that having a class that encapsulates "thing with attributes" would be good. We have seen how the introduction of IdentifiableObject has greatly improved the source code and allowed for generic use of objects. A similar benefit could come from introducing a base class for things with attributes. But this discussion is not primarily about that. From a model perspective, we need a concrete class which is associated with attributes, events and other entities in the "tracker" model. This class must also be mapped as a unique Hibernate entity. For this we need a concrete class which name is generic enough to represent persons, lab samples, stock, medicines and other things we might want to track. For that I think TrackedEntity is a good name. We are not prohibited from letting that class inherit properties and logic from another base class later. On Dec 7, 2013 11:43 PM, "Bob Jolliffe" <[email protected]> wrote: > ah ok. Then I suppose we are sitting with an opportunity. As we come up > with a better solution to patient attributes we keep in mind that what we > do come up with should be possible to be reused to address the other > inadequacies when we eventually have the opportunity decide to address > them. Hence my quibbling about names ... the Ministry of Silly Names as > Lars is fond of referring to :-) > > > On 8 December 2013 00:36, Morten Olav Hansen <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Actually, I don't think we have had any discussion of attributes at >> all... today, we have attributes (for 'aggregates', ou, de, etc) and we >> have patientattributes... both seem inadequate for this purpose.. and I >> would hope we don't reuse any of them. >> >> -- >> Morten >> >> >> On Sat, Dec 7, 2013 at 11:34 PM, Bob Jolliffe <[email protected]>wrote: >> >>> Sorry I don't have much idea on how the detailed discussion has been on >>> actually implementing the attributes. I had assumed (now it seems wrongly) >>> that you would use something based on our existing attributes mechanism. >>> Having yet-another-object-with-attributes seems to me like the wrong >>> approach. Either try to use existing mechanism or generalize and improve >>> that if there are deficiencies. For example liked the discussion I was >>> hearing about labels etc. >>> >>> Anyway too late here now I must sleep. Catch up later. >>> >>> >>> On 7 December 2013 23:59, Morten Olav Hansen <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> 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 > >
-- 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
