Yes, I meant what you said Burke. (Hopefully that was my only typo.)
-Darius (by phone) On Apr 17, 2012 6:48 PM, "Burke Mamlin" <[email protected]> wrote: > Darius, > > Did you mean to two posts, one to patient & the other to person? Both of > yours were to the same resource. > > This implies that if you want to modify a patient's gender *and* identifiers, >> you have to do *two* POSTs. >> For example: >> POST patient/abcd1234 { identifiers: [ ... ] } >> POST *person*/abcd1234 { gender: 'M' } > > > Cheers, > > -Burke > > On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 8:01 PM, Darius Jazayeri <[email protected]>wrote: > >> Hi All, >> >> On tomorrow's design call one topic we will discuss is how to properly >> represent inheritance and subclasses in a RESTful way. Fun and exciting >> background discussion can be found on the ticket: >> https://tickets.openmrs.org/browse/RESTWS-221. Call-in details are >> here<https://tickets.openmrs.org/browse/RESTWS-221> >> . >> >> My proposal, generally supported by Saptarshi, and disliked by Roger, is >> that we represent a subclass as basically the composition of a superclass >> resource, and a subclass resource contains subclass-specific properties, >> and a pointer to the superclass. >> >> For example: GET patient/abcd1234 -> >> { >> identifiers: [ ... ], // this is the only Patient-specific property >> links: [ >> { rel: "self", uri: "patient/abcd1234" } >> ], >> person: { // this is a pointer to the superclass >> names: [ ... ], >> gender: 'M', >> // other properties on the Person superclass follow >> links: [ >> { rel: "self", uri: "person/abcd1234" } >> ] >> } >> } >> >> This implies that if you want to modify a patient's gender *and* identifiers, >> you have to do *two* POSTs. >> For example: >> POST patient/abcd1234 { identifiers: [ ... ] } >> POST patient/abcd1234 { gender: 'M' } >> >> You should be able to *create* a patient in a single POST, but not >> update one that way. >> >> At first this seems inconvenient, and unintuitive for someone who's used >> to the OpenMRS Java API. The reason for this is that I think it's necessary >> to support web-standard caching, which allows web service scalability. >> Basically, imagine that someone may be running a reverse-proxy on their >> server, which caches resources generated by the server and serves them up >> to many web clients, relieving server load. In order for that reverse-proxy >> cache to avoid serving up stale data, we cannot allow doing POST >> patient/abc123 to modify the resource at person/abc123. (According to web >> standards, if the cache sees a POST to patient/abc123, this invalidates >> that specific cache entry, but all of this is invisible to the >> server.) Thus my proposal. >> >> I'm only moderately certain I'm approaching this right, so if you know or >> suspect the right answer to this problem (especially if it's different from >> my proposal), please reply and/or join us on the design call tomorrow! >> >> -Darius >> >> PS- The other topic we'll discuss on the call is Wyclif's proposal for a >> module, that will allow us to reboot our implementation of orders and order >> entry, such that we implement something better, and it runs on both old and >> new versions of OpenMRS. All in all this will be an action-packed call. >> ------------------------------ >> Click here to >> unsubscribe<[email protected]?body=SIGNOFF%20openmrs-devel-l>from >> OpenMRS Developers' mailing list > > > ------------------------------ > Click here to > unsubscribe<[email protected]?body=SIGNOFF%20openmrs-devel-l>from > OpenMRS Developers' mailing list _________________________________________ To unsubscribe from OpenMRS Developers' mailing list, send an e-mail to [email protected] with "SIGNOFF openmrs-devel-l" in the body (not the subject) of your e-mail. [mailto:[email protected]?body=SIGNOFF%20openmrs-devel-l]
