[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Health-dev] From medical to health : Task 11360 completed

From: Cédric Krier
Subject: Re: [Health-dev] From medical to health : Task 11360 completed
Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2011 14:16:34 +0200
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)

On 15/09/11 08:53 -0300, Luis Falcon wrote:
> 2011/9/15 Cédric Krier <address@hidden>
> > On 14/09/11 23:05 -0300, Luis Falcon wrote:
> > > Hi everyone
> > >
> > > I just finished the conversion from medical to health. Please check the
> > > details here :
> > >
> > >
> >
> > I'm a little bit disappointed that you choose to mix "health" and
> > "gnuhealth".
> > It will bring confusion to the developers.
> >
> We discussed it yesterday at the IRC. Is not mixing. They are two different
> concepts. "gnuhealth" is a unique prefix for all the models or every module.
> health is a broad concept and used in different contexts. As a matter of
> fact, is the name of the core module, so referencing it it would be
> confusing (
> With this nomenclature everything is clear.

I don't see things like that.
module names should explain the content of it and the name of the Model should
be linked only to what it does and to which concept it is linked.

But indeed, the more I look at the naming in GNUHealth, the more I find it
If I take the module health_pediatrics, any Models have "pediatric" in his
name. How can a developer find that 'gnuhealth.newborn' comes from this
I don't know if it is the name of the Models or the name of the module which
needs to be fixed, but I find this is confusing and will be more and more when
new modules will be added.

Also for your information, we plan to remove in the future the _name in Model
and just use the class name.

Cédric Krier

Rue de Rotterdam, 4
4000 Liège
Tel: +32 472 54 46 59
Email/Jabber: address@hidden

Attachment: pgpHX0uWUsBeL.pgp
Description: PGP signature

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]