Java 8 has a Duration for hours, minutes and seconds, and Period for years, months and days. Both implement a few interfaces with which you can abstract them. No idea why they chose this, it’s quite annoying to work with. You can relatively easily implement your own variant of ChronoPeriof that supports all of the options.
Regards, Pieter Bos Op 20 mrt. 2018 om 21:06 heeft Pablo Pazos <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> het volgende geschreven: Thanks Thomas, will create the PR! Also will double check if the same happens with other types, but I think the only "odd" one that might not be correct to assume, is the Duration. For instance, Java 8 added the Duration as a base type, but it only handles day to seconds duration expressions, year, month, week are not supported. Each technology has it's own quirks :) On Tue, Mar 20, 2018 at 7:21 AM, Thomas Beale <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: On 19/03/2018 22:25, Pablo Pazos wrote: Hi Thomas, the definition of DV_DURATION is clear to me :) The issue is on the 1.0.2 specs, I guess they used DV_DURATION in C_DURATION because the referenced Duration class in C_DURATION was not included on the specs. This is the issue I'm pointing to, the missing class. Right - the ADL/AOM 1.4 specs made the assumption that each primitive constrainer type i.e. C_INTEGER, C_STRING, C_DATE, C_DURATION etc, constrained a same- or similarly named primitive type like Integer, String, Date, Duration etc that are assumed to be part of the technology environment. THey are normally part of the programming language, DB, or serialisation formalisms. I think this probably was not as clear as it should have been in that spec. In the AOM2/ADL2 specs, we have clarified this so that the same types (C_INTEGER etc) now refer to types that are defined in the Foundation spec of the BASE component. Clarifying that on an errata addendum would help to avoid such implementation mistakes, that are really caused by the missing information on the spec + interpretation to fill the gap. agree, we should do this - can you create a PR for this? Or add to an existing PR. BTW, this is one case that I detected because I'm doing research for a new course. There might be issues like this on other areas of 1.0.2, I mean missing classes referenced from AOM or AOP. I didn't do a complete review of the specs. I would love to migrate everything to baseline spec and use AOM2, but I can't afford the cost right now. I'm sure others are on my same position. hopefully that will change soon, because ADL2 is more regular and simpler than ADL1.4 - the ADL2 OPT for example is much easier to process. I'd be interested to know what the real costs are and to see what we can do to make the transition simpler, because staying with ADL1.4 is limiting system functionality for the future. BTW tried to check if the issue is also on 1.0.3 but the link to support is broken http://openehr.org/RM/Release-1.0.3/support.html the page where you got that link<https://www.openehr.org/releases/RM/Release-1.0.3/docs/index> is now fixed. - thomas _______________________________________________ openEHR-technical mailing list [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org -- Ing. Pablo Pazos Gutiérrez [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> +598 99 043 145 skype: cabolabs [https://docs.google.com/uc?export=download&id=0B27lX-sxkymfdEdPLVI5UTZuZlU&revid=0B27lX-sxkymfcUwzT0N2RUs3bGU2UUovakc4VXBxWFZ6OXNnPQ] <http://cabolabs.com/> http://www.cabolabs.com<http://www.cabolabs.com/> https://cloudehrserver.com<https://cloudehrserver.com/> Subscribe to our newsletter<http://eepurl.com/b_w_tj> _______________________________________________ openEHR-technical mailing list [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org _______________________________________________ openEHR-technical mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org
