Now I come to think about it, I remember reading somewhere that conversion durations to number of years or months is no longer desired because years and months do not have always the same number of nanoseconds.
Of course conversions to days and weeks is easy, although they are also not always the same, but that can be ignored, it is one second every few years. Op 20 mrt. 2018 23:08 schreef "A Verhees" <[email protected]>: > Now you say, you are right. > > The Java 8 duration is indeed diffrent, but you can still use the Joda > duration, or you can write your own duration class. In Golang the duration > class is also limited, it is build around nanoseconds, but I wrote my own > which is conform the OpenEhr specs, which was not that hard. > > https://golang.org/pkg/time/#Duration > https://docs.oracle.com/javase/8/docs/api/java/time/Duration.html > > Maybe it is a good idea for the OpenEhr community to study the duration > type again to see why in two major programming languages there is another > approach build around nanoseconds and having conversions to hours, etc. > Maybe there is another trend coming up. Maybe it is interesting to conform > to these trends > > Bert > > Op 20 mrt. 2018 21:06 schreef "Pablo Pazos" <[email protected]>: > > 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]> > 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] >> http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_ >> lists.openehr.org >> > > > > -- > Ing. Pablo Pazos Gutiérrez > [email protected] > +598 99 043 145 <+598%2099%20043%20145> > skype: cabolabs > <http://cabolabs.com/> > http://www.cabolabs.com > https://cloudehrserver.com > Subscribe to our newsletter <http://eepurl.com/b_w_tj> > > _______________________________________________ > openEHR-technical mailing list > [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
