In some languages, it is very easy to remove obsolete fields, but in large legacy MUMPS systems, even one controlled as well as VistA, removing a field should not be taken lightly.
Doing a static analysis, MUMPS is so flexible, that even when I extract code from global, locals, and comments, there is no assurance that I have found all references, and using dynamic analysis to find references is too costly, and could not hit every path through the code. One way to remove a field, might be just remove it, then is something breaks (could be months after the field was removed), determine if removing the field (make sure its removal was well commented) caused the break. Legacy systems are proven systems that have passed the test of time, and if they are documented, they are better than a new system. I would just leave the field alone, document the fact that it is not used, then if someone finds that is is used, then correct the comment. IMHO, Bob On Thu, 2005-10-20 at 16:14, Cameron Schlehuber wrote: > NO ASTERISKS! One might as well change the name of the field as the "*" > will break other things anyway. That approach was an abomination > perpetuated by folks who didn't understand what they were doing. If a field > is obsolete, it should be deleted. If others use it but you don't, change > the template, etc. > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of James > Gray > Sent: Thursday, October 20, 2005 3:35 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [Hardhats-members] Data fields in VIsta > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Jim Self" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > If field definitions should not be deleted, what standard methods and > > conventions are > > there for marking fields as obsolete or unused, so that they would be > > suppressed from a > > generated list of editable or viewable fields? > > Jim, Experts such as yourself can certainly know when it is safe to delete > fields (most of the time). Somebody like Greg who knows the SAC better than > > I do can tell us the convention for marking fields as obsolete. I believe > it is to mark the field with an * as the first character in the name. > > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > This SF.Net email is sponsored by: > Power Architecture Resource Center: Free content, downloads, discussions, > and more. http://solutions.newsforge.com/ibmarch.tmpl > _______________________________________________ > Hardhats-members mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/hardhats-members > ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email is sponsored by: Power Architecture Resource Center: Free content, downloads, discussions, and more. http://solutions.newsforge.com/ibmarch.tmpl _______________________________________________ Hardhats-members mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/hardhats-members
