Reflecting a bit on this morning's meta-discussion, it occurred to me that I can sometimes cause some consternation among other VistA developers because I tend to introduce new routines and new files in preference to making incompatible changes to existing code. Of course, what I have in mind is not duplication of code, but rather a form of dependency injection. Why don't we see this more often? I think one reason is that we tend to manage file numbers and routine names as scarce resources. given the infrastructure we have in place today, maybe they are scarce resources, but I suppose it didn't occur to me that this is a big reason why we have so often relied on invasive methods (like "in place" code changes) to extend VistA. It's not just a matter of having "room to grow", but something more subtle. The very patterns that support extensibility without introducing tight coupling generally do require some supporting structures, and they need to live somewhere. Gregory Woodhouse "Judge a man by his questions not his answers." --Voltaire |
Using Tomcat but need to do more? Need to support web services, security? Get stuff done quickly with pre-integrated technology to make your job easier Download IBM WebSphere Application Server v.1.0.1 based on Apache Geronimo http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid=120709&bid=263057&dat=121642
_______________________________________________ Hardhats-members mailing list Hardhats-members@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/hardhats-members
