Hi, Thanks for the heads-up, Lars, that's what I hoped for :) I'll try to make a first-cut then. And thanks to everyone for the feedback, it has at least has cleared up things a bit in my head.
Den 18. feb. 2011 kl. 01.58 skrev Lars Helge Øverland: > I would prefer having dxf as root but if you really really want to have > isolated datavalusets I guess we can pipe the message through an xslt and end > up with dxf since the datavalueset part can be similar. If we think datavalueSets are workable for a future dxf, it is enough to put it in the new dxf version namespace (what would we want that to be, btw?). I don't really see the advantage of a wrapper for the "post datavalueset" case, so I'd like to keep it simple if this isn't an blocking preference :) We should easily enough be able to accept receiving both wrapped and not, though. Would that cover your preference? It would probably require a little bit of consideration and it should be easy enough to add later, so I don't think I'll use time on it right now. > The important thing for me is that we have one parser. We will see enough > complexity through maintenance of new minor/major versions of the > format/parser and I would really like to only have one of these things to > maintain:) Yes, I tried saying something about this in my answer to Bob. There are always the chance that this strategy doesn't work out as good as hoped, but testing it with real code in smaller use cases first should at least make things a bit easier to evaluate (and in the worst case reversible). And as long as we think the new xml format will be ok.. Jo _______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~dhis2-devs Post to : dhis2-devs@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~dhis2-devs More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
