Op Monday 06 August 2007 22:38:20 schreef Tim Churches:
> <snip>
> <snip>
> <snip>
>
> I'm not sure whether that means it supports queries or not - I suspect not.
>
> So for an open-source implementation of openEHR, it looks like, as at
> August 2007, one has to either wait an indeterminate length of time for
> the ACode implementation to be completed or one has to write an entire
> openEHR kernel (and test and validate it, which is the more
> time-consuming part) oneself.
I have some opinions on this, I like to express:
--------------
This is true, I wrote my own version of the kernel, following the specs very
carefully, and heavily inspired by the work of ACode.
A bit of history and the current situation:
Discussions around last Christmas, ended up in a way that I decided to go on
on my own way, and write my own data-access layer. First I worked a lot with
Hibernate3, but I came to hate the way you lose control when using Hibernate.
But a part of the idea of hibernate is good, the fact that it uses derived
classes to make them persistent is good. I followed that idea and I wrote my
own data-access layer for OpenEhr.
I am about to finish this work. The test-results are very promising. I can
tell you more in only a few weeks.
It was a big job, but I had to do it, because there was no open source work
done, as you say.
Sad enough, I cannot publish my work as open source, all by all (not only the
data-access-layer), it took me about a year to do it, and that money I have
to make, to use for that very expensive thing called "living".
Because my data-access layer is fully based on SQL, and only clear simple ANSI
SQL, it can be used on a wide range of database-engines, open source, or
closed source, it is just a matter of changing a configuration file.
-------------------
What and why
I think, people spend a lot of time/money in OpenEhr, for me as a person,
about a year of living, really a lot of money (for a person, I am not a
student, I have two suns, lovely, but expensive twins)
And for Ocean and ACode, also a lot of human time-spent and so a lot of money.
This makes it impossible to give it away. I see no other solution then to
keep it closed source. (do you? I am interested in ideas about this.)
I regard the *good work* (emphasize this) done by Rong and Thomas and many
others as reference work. That is how they call it. It is a reference-kernel.
You can use it, inspire you're work on it, it is not meant to be working
software.
OpenEhr, IMHO is *not* an open source project, but an open
specification-project, which is very very good!!! I see no other way to do
it.
So these were opinions which I wanted to express, I am very anxious to hear
others about this subject.
>
> Is that correct? I must save this email for re-use because I have been
> asking this same question for over three years now...
I hope, by then, OpenEhr will be so much accepted in society that others will
build open source implementations, and many, maybe distributions, like
Linux-kernels. I think that software which does not lead to open source in
time is a failure.
Me, for myself, I am thinking of building a high performance OpenEhr-kernel in
C++, I already did some study, looked at automatic garbage-collection-methods
for C++ (without complex software cannot exist, I believe). It could
eventually be generated from existing Java or C# code.
But chances are small I will ever do it, and today we have good byte-code
interpreters, so the performance to gain in C++ may be not very much.
--
Plato, by the way, wanted to banish all poets from his proposed Utopia
because they were liars. The truth was that Plato knew philosophers
couldn't compete successfully with poets.
-- Kilgore Trout (Philip J. Farmer) "Venus on the Half
Shell"
