Thanks for the responses. So I guess this might very well be a start of a general evolution in the meta model? It might be worth already now thinking a little through the possible consequences of this direction going forward. I think this is something we need :)
As we work through how to represent the meta model in external formats (xml and so on), this might have implications on how generic a model we should create for these formats (and I guess the attribute definitions themselves have to represented in some way). In that context it might make sense to generalize both the objects these attributes apply to and the way we represent atrributes more generally. And also at least look at and specify likely future harmonization now? Changing the external formats once they are created is much more difficult than changing implementation details, so it might be worth it to think a little bit broader already now. A minor point - when I saw the term dynamic attributes, I was immediately thinking free-form attributes (more like tags you could put on individual org units). But I guess this is about predefined attribute types applied to (specific) meta objects(?) Maybe just calling it "attributes" might be good enough, if that is what it is? 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
