Re: [Gnumed-devel] widget connecting

[Hilmar Berger]

sjtan wrote:
> I've downloaded Pyro and Fnorb and Omni , awaiting a decision. Why not
> just convert gmTmpPatient to a remote object ?
 
> Or maybe K and you write a business framework specification
> (no coding, just interfaces , in python , rpc IDL, corba IDL ) , and
> then toss it around for committee review until everyone agrees this is
> what is wanted.
> 
> (couldn't take much longer than the constant stops and starts 
> at hacking out connection code).
IMHO our problems regarding backend connection of the clinical record
widgets
are not related to the client side vs. remote object decision. Implementing
an EHR is an 
difficult task and more if you try to implent it without exact written
specification.  
However, I´m convinced that we can get an sufficient implementation within
the next time 
following the current plan and implementing business objects on the client
side.  
Additionally,we need more coders working steadily in one direction,
currently there are only 2 (karsten and sjtan) that seem to work on the clinical
record part.

> It would be good if some sort of versioning control , or plan could be
> done e.g. 
> spiral model:
>       cycle 1 : put out the poor man's MD. Stores and prints scripts, notes,
> and a few lists , prints letters, enforces a investigation follow up
> accounting.
I absolutely agree that we should write down a plan or at least detailed
list on what should go in
the first release. We will only waste time if we don´t stop adding more and
more features/ideas without a solid base. The first release might contain
only a few key parts (core,clinical, drug) that can be finished in the
foreseeable future. Everything else can as well go in one of the next releases.

Hilmar

-- 
+++ GMX - Mail, Messaging & more  http://www.gmx.net +++
Bitte lächeln! Fotogalerie online mit GMX ohne eigene Homepage!