Hi James,
I am trying to add the exclusion. Meanwhile I also did a mvn
dependency:tree and here is what I got.
C:\Users\SARA\IHEModule\IHEInteroperability>mvn dependency:tree
[INFO] Scanning for projects...
[INFO]
[INFO] Rea
This should be fairly simple, it just means that you have a version of
slf4j-api that is too new (probably because HAPI is pulling it in). If you
explicitly add a dependency in your pom.xml for slf4j-api the specifies a
1.5.x version (you should be able to find one in your OpenHIE pom) it'll
use th
Hi Matt,
You'll find the full specification for HL7 over HTTP here:
http://hl7api.sourceforge.net/hapi-hl7overhttp/specification.html
1) what should the content type be for the response messages ER7
formatted hl7 requests (I'm thinking text/plain)
application/hl7-v2
(although as a part of prepa
Thanks for the exhaustive answer, as always. It's nice to hear that these
issues have already been addressed.
Good job!
On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 11:10 PM, James Agnew wrote:
> Hi Giacomo,
>
> Unfortunately this is a case of the code being behind the specification.
> At the previous HL7 working gr
Hi Giacomo,
Unfortunately this is a case of the code being behind the specification. At
the previous HL7 working group meeting the ITS (implementable technology
specification) group approved two changes to the spec:
* HTTP 200 response code for all valid HL7 message responses (the rationale
being
Hi Rahul,
Thanks for the feedback.
My general sense is that having a signature is definitely not going to be
required in many cases, which was the main motivation for putting it in an
optional profile of its own. As you point out, TLS with Symmetric keys can
also do a great job of mutually authen
James,
Thanks for putting this together.
I'm looking at the Signature Profile and wondering if it buys us anything that
Mutual Authentication (X.509) does not. Can we do away with the HL7-Signature
header?
R,
rahul
On Jul 30, 2012, at 7:20 PM, James Agnew wrote:
> Hi Everyone,
>
> The very f
7 matches
Mail list logo
