Hi all, Since we are talking about serialization format of archetypes, I guess we are not talking about a very large amount of data.
I would prefer to keep the serialization format(s) as close to the object model as possible in order to reduce differences between standards and associated tooling work. Cheers, Rong On 14 November 2011 23:56, Heath Frankel <heath.frankel at oceaninformatics.com> wrote: > Hi Thomas, > > > > yes - everyone goes through the same process I think. The P_ classes I now > have in the ADL 1.5 compiler are my latest addition in this process. > > [HKF: ] No, this is something you learn as it sounds like both you, I and > others do doubt have learned.? The first thing a new comer does is use their > favourite XML toolkit to create classes and instances derived from the XML > Schema.? This is why we still get questions about the slight variations that > we currently between the schema and the specifications. > > The thing is, we do want to reduce the entry point to use openEHR and if we > require a custom serializer then we make this entry point harder. > > well, not if all the tooling is done.... and easy to use. Who writes their > own XML parser these days? > > [HKF: ] Wasn?t talking about that. ?However, actually we do, they are > SAX-based readers where we want a stream reader into a domain model rather > than an XML DOM. > > As I have stated previously, even with existing tools out there such as the > Eiffel, Java, Python, Ruby and C# open source projects, people will still > write their own for whatever reason.? I bet there are at least a dozen Java > RM implementations in the world, I know of four. > > Heath > > _______________________________________________ > openEHR-technical mailing list > openEHR-technical at openehr.org > http://lists.chime.ucl.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical > >
