I would say the reason to show those 3 alternatives was to prevent the user to overwrite a potential xxxxx.v1 archetype with a xxxxx.v2 archetype. It seems like it can be annoying sometimes so we should make it a configuration option (and switched off by default).
2012/6/24 Thomas Beale <thomas.beale at oceaninformatics.com>: > > Bert, > > yes, you are right. It's not required, and the ADL Workbench and Ocean > Template Designer don't care about the file name. It's a straightforward > matter for all tools to remove this restriction (it means running a > micro-parser across all the files to read the first line or few lines, so > that an explorer / browser widget can be populated). > > - thomas > > > On 24/06/2012 13:30, Bert Verhees wrote: > > Please consider following. > > I think it is a weak point to have a file which contains an archetype having > the same name as the archetype-id. > This policy is enforced by as well the OCEAN-editor as the LinkEHR editor > (however the latter has a bug in this). > > I don't know if it is "officially" specified. But the disadvantage is that > information is stored twice in the same file (in the contents and in the > filename), this can cause problems, ambiguities. > > Also, it is unnecessary restrictive, it is impossible to store more > archetypes in one text-file. > > Many programming languages have the same restriction, but often the have > also workarounds for this restriction. > > regards > Bert Verhees > > > _______________________________________________ > openEHR-technical mailing list > openEHR-technical at lists.openehr.org > http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org
