look ,I'm not a lobbyist, I only criticize something to boost my flagging
ego.
you don't need to be a lobbyist - you obviously have some strong
views about medical data types. You can post your critiques here
to an audience that probably doesn't care, or you can post them
on the public openehr lists, and query the actual designers of the
datatypes themselves about why things were done that way..
I would note however that you seem to operate on some
dangerous assumptions, namely
any design decision that doesn't match 'your way' is
a) a basic flaw rather than an engineering choice
b) the result of a lack of understanding by the other party
rather than a conscious design decision
You could use the Visitor pattern and the Decorator pattern here ( from
the gang of four , around 1995, one of which is involved with the
Eclipse project , around 2004 -2006).
I am certain that the openehr people are familiar with gof design
patterns.. (see (b) above)
I'm guessing that is one reason why the openehr people are doing it
object-oriented, but they haven't focussed on the
"I need to design this to avoid type-testing " objective to get a clearer
design.
I am certain that the openehr people are familiar with the trade-offs and
ramifications of object oriented design.. (see (b) above)
Andrew
_______________________________________________
Gpcg_talk mailing list
[email protected]
http://ozdocit.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpcg_talk
