On 14/11/2011 05:23, Heath Frankel wrote: > > Hi Thomas, > > The answers to the two questions below seem to be counter to each > other. I think if we want to stay true to the RM that we should do > this consistently, otherwise there is no reason why we can't deviate > in other cases such as the first case below. In fact I would go > further and suggest a syntax such as occurrences = <2..*> in dADL and > similar in XML. >
yep - in dADL it is <"2..*"> because the corresponding field in the classes P_C_ATTRIBUTE, P_C_OBJECT is a String. In XML, it is also currently a String element, but it could be an attribute. > However, others may not be so keen on this as those starting out with > openEHR like to use the built-in development tools in their favourite > IDE to generate classes that match the AM/RM and automatically > serialize data. This is certainly where I started but soon found > limitations in this approach and now have a custom serializer. > yes - everyone goes through the same process I think. The P_ classes I now have in the ADL 1.5 compiler are my latest addition in this process. > The thing is, we do want to reduce the entry point to use openEHR and > if we require a custom serializer then we make this entry point harder. > well, not if all the tooling is done.... and easy to use. Who writes their own XML parser these days? - thomas -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/private/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20111114/74dcf8f8/attachment.html>
