I do not see either a preference for Cache or a preference for GT.M as a mystery. There are pros and cons for each choice and the choice seems to me to be one that those involved need to consider for each implementation depending upon the circumstances and requirements for each individual setting. Hopefully vendors will have the ability to provide whatever is most suitable for their customers.
In your setting, I suspect GT.M will be the sensible choice even if there are, in fact, a few problems that require adjustments to the infrastructure code for this platform to make ZTMGRSET do its job for GT.M like the others. It may be that it will be necessary for you to contract with someone with a great depth of expertise in this area to help you with this. Your programmers seem to have done a remarkable job with their brains, hard work and the largess of the Hardhats mailing list contributors, but this problem may take a bit more. On Saturday 03 June 2006 01:14, Joseph Puthooran wrote: Dear Jim, Thanks for your input. There is no doubt that the WorldVistA team is doing a great job and we are all grateful for that. But with all the time constraints that exist, it may not always be possible to include others who are investing time in trying to implement OpenVistA, by keeping them informed of the agenda of such meetings and the outcome. Also it is possible that some will use such information without giving back to the community. But that will be a risk one has to take. The reason I raised this was also because at one of the earlier R&D coding workshops, I was told that it was restricted to invitees. I am sure that there is a good reason to restrict the size to a focused group. But I wish there is a mechanism to communicate the work done to the community. If the planned work is articulated it is possible that others would also contribute without being physically present at the meetings. Considering the constraints with which WorldVistA operates, I am sure that this is easier said than done. But I hope that will happen some time in the future. Else the impression that there is a lack of transparency will percolate certainly unjustified, but it could undermine the free exchange and motivation to contribute to the community. My real concern is that I am planning to implement VistA in India. I want to be sure what would be a wise strategy in terms of the platform. Presently my view is that for the smaller clinics and physician practices, GT.M may be the best option considering the absence of licensing responsibilities. But for a larger hospital, I wonder if that will be too much of a risk and whether Cache would be safer. I cannot afford to take the risk of failure. But it is possible that the OpenVistA on GT.M could prove equally robust. But why people prefer Cache is still a mystery. --- Jim Self <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Joseph Puthooran wrote: > >Secondly I wonder what is the agenda of the exclusive > > OpenVistA > > >R&D coding worshops. Is it to address some of these issues > > that > > >were left out at the OpenVistA porting exercise? > > The developer meetings that I have been involved with have > been exclusive only in their > ...... snip __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ Hardhats-members mailing list Hardhats-members@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/hardhats-members -- Nancy Anthracite _______________________________________________ Hardhats-members mailing list Hardhats-members@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/hardhats-members
