Yes, taking a look at Daniel's Organizational role proposal was on my to do list for the weekend, but I didn't get to it..
We definitely went back and forth on just adding provider role as a provider attribute versus modifying the provider table directly. The main reason we ended up adding provider role directly to provider is to facilitate rolling the change into core *if* we decide we want to go that way. This would be similar to the way "program location" started off in a module but was then rolled into core. Mark -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Friedman, Roger (CDC/CGH/DGHA) (CTR) Sent: Sunday, May 13, 2012 12:06 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [OPENMRS-DEV] Belated request for module ids -- provider role If you compare Mark's Provider Role implementation with Daniel's Organizational Role proposal, there are some notable differences: (1) Organizational role is many to one with person, while Provider Role is one to one with provider (2) Organizational role is associated with a location as well as a person. Unless the functions of the two Role formulations are very different, I think we ought to have a common understanding about these issues. Also, I'd like to hear others' opinions on a module modifying a core object. I think the appropriate thing to do would be to subclass the core object. Of course, if you do subclass a core object with attributes, you are gaining very little on just having an attribute. Maybe if it were modeled as table-per-concrete-subclass rather than our more typical table-per-superclass-plus-concrete-subclass you might get the same performance benefits as extending the table. I think the question of whether Roles supervise Roles (with or without consideration of Location) or Persons/Providers supervise Persons/Providers has multiple possible answers. I know that Mark was facing a deadline and had to make choices, but maybe we will have to wait for v.2 to have a common solution. I look forward to Thursday's presentation. -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Mark Goodrich Sent: Saturday, May 12, 2012 11:29 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [OPENMRS-DEV] Belated request for module ids To add on to that, I can get a module id of providermanagement blessed for the Provider Management module? This module adds a new object, Provider Role, which is linked to a Provider via a column it adds to the Provider table. A Provider Role can be associated with Provider Attributes, Relationship Types (to specify different types of supported Provider/Patient relationships), and other Provider Roles (to define allowed Supervisor/Supervisee relationships between Provider Roles). The module provides an API and UI to manage providers and provider relationships. The module is not yet complete, but I will be doing a work-in-progress demo on the Developers's Call next Thursday. Mark ________________________________________ From: [email protected] [[email protected]] On Behalf Of Darius Jazayeri [[email protected]] Sent: Friday, May 11, 2012 6:56 PM To: [email protected] Subject: [OPENMRS-DEV] Belated request for module ids Hi Code, (copying Dev) I have created the following modules, and deployed them to our maven repo, and to the module repository: * uiframework (the UI framework formerly known as 2.x) * uilibrary (standard widgets built on uiframework) * appframework (the idea of "app" buttons on your homepage that can be enabled per user and role) I didn't email [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> at the time because I put the code in my github account, but it just occurred to me that since I've deployed these to maven and the module repo, I really should have requested the module id. So, can I please get those retroactively blessed? :-) Our documentation about this is currently lacking. In a quick search the only reference I found to emailing [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> is on this page: https://wiki.openmrs.org/x/UwAJ and it's specifically talking about access to the svn repo. Obviously I should be allowed to put my code at github.com/djazayeri/openmrs-module-uiframework<http://github.com/djazayeri/openmrs-module-uiframework> without asking permission. But I should need to ask permission to take a module id in the maven and module repos. Do we want to just rephrase our documentation to say you need to ask [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> to claim a module id in the OpenMRS repos? Or do want to consider something else? -Darius PS- working with git and github is wonderful. Like playing in cotton candy clouds with sunshine and rainbows. The combination of Eclipse+git+maven works a lot better than with svn, for not having to worry about annoying eclipse plugin and connector versions. The workflow is more complicated, but I mostly haven't had to deal with that yet. ________________________________ Click here to unsubscribe<mailto:[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] _________________________________________ 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] _________________________________________ 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]
