Hi all, Since this discussion is about how to implement things defined on the openEHR specs, I may suggest this is a topic of "implementation technology specification" instead of a "change request" to the specs. I mean, this is one of many things we need to consider when we implement openEHR in a certain technology, and if we can write down all those alternatives for each technology, we could have another layer of specifications, the "ITS for Java|Ruby|.Net". E.g. HL7 has ITS specs. Just my 2 cents.
-- Kind regards, Ing. Pablo Pazos Guti?rrez LinkedIn: http://uy.linkedin.com/in/pablopazosgutierrez Blog: http://informatica-medica.blogspot.com/ Twitter: http://twitter.com/ppazos > Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2012 10:47:37 +0900 > Subject: Re: Suggestion to replace use of generics with inheritence in future > RM versions > From: skoba at moss.gr.jp > To: openehr-technical at lists.openehr.org > > Hi Peter, > > 2012/3/22 Peter Gummer <peter.gummer at oceaninformatics.com>: > > Shinji KOBAYASHI wrote: > > > >> Ruby implementation might be one of the proof for replace of generics. > >> I had much struggled to implement generics and got the conclusion > >> that we do not need it. > > Ruby doesn't have generics at all, right, Shinji? > > It is right. I felt generics is very convenient, when I used Java, such as > > Iterator<DvText> it = someRmArrayInstance.iterator() > > But I found it must be cut off by 'Occam's razor' in Ruby. > > it = some_rm_array.iterator > > This code looks curious for Java/Eiffel/C# user who are similar to generics, > but it is enough for encapsulated object instance. > I think this depends on language environment, but nested generics seems > complicated codes for me. > > List <Map <Integer, String>> > > Generics is useful to declare what instance is, but it breaks encapsulation. > As regards to Bartrand Meyer's paper, 'a good balance' is a good design. > > Cheers, > Shinji > > > There's a comparison of generics and inheritance in an appendix of Bertrand > > Meyer's "Object Oriented Software Construction", 2nd edition. > > (http://se.ethz.ch/~meyer/publications/acm/geninh.pdf seems to be the > > original paper that the appendix is based upon.) > > > > Generics can be simulated in a language with inheritance, but there is a > > cost: > > * Duplication of code. > > * Extra verbosity. > > > > I don't want to have either forced upon me. If I'm unfortunately forced to > > use a language that doesn't support generics, then I can always simulate it > > the generics with inheritance. But I certainly wouldn't want the specs to > > be obfuscated by hacks like that, thanks very much ;-) > > > > Peter > > _______________________________________________ > > openEHR-technical mailing list > > openEHR-technical at lists.openehr.org > > http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org > > _______________________________________________ > openEHR-technical mailing list > openEHR-technical at lists.openehr.org > http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.openehr.org/pipermail/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20120321/1d0f4dc0/attachment-0001.html>
