Re: [Gnumed-devel] Comments on 0.2

[Tim Churches]

Karsten Hilbert wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 21, 2006 at 07:30:30AM +1000, Tim Churches wrote:
>>>  Serializable is logically cleaner. (but produces more work)
>>>
>>> Exactly what we do. We run serializable transactions. No
>>> bullshit in our database.
>> Yeah, and you can set that behaviour as a config option in PG...
> But we cannot rely on it being set to on. That would be like
> relying on MySQL having InnoDB table by default. Hence we
> set this behaviour whenever opening a new connection. Which
> is unrelated to whether we need "select for update".

Karsten, I think it is OK to say: "GNUmed only works correctly if you
configure it this". Trying to code for all possible misconfigurations
will drive everyone mad and lead to bloated, overly complex code which
never reaches V1.0. At some point you need to trust  sysadmins
installing the system to follow instructions, or better, to provide
automated installation tools and trust those installers to get the
configuration right.

>> OK, its your computer science project - I'me just an outside observer
>> offering unsolicited comments. But if people as smart as Ian are
>> bamboozled by GNUmed's complexity,
> This complexity is actually quite hidden and can be pretty
> much ignored. And BTW I was just implementing Horst's
> original concept on this one. When he said/suggested that we
> want to be absolutely sure no crap enters the database I
> went out and did it. I can't help it that I can't do it any
> better. I don't have education in such matters. I can only
> write it the way I understand it. Someone else could have
> done it but no one did.

Fair enough, but remember that one certain way to ensure that no crap
enters the database is to fail to deliver a production-ready V1.0 in our
lifetimes. You need to find the right balance between theoretical
perfection and achievable and sustainable levels of complexity.

Tim C