LongValue class and dadl-parser
Hi Rong, shoudn't there be a LongValue-class in the dadl-parser? (same as Integer-class but than for Long?) I missed when I was rewriting the parser for another purpose. --------------- I explain, maybe someone is interested. I see no advantage for DADL, because everything which is expressible can also be expressed in XML. Using DADL has one big disadvantage. When you work with third parties, you need to get them to write DADL, which is hard to get it done. There is another disadvantage, that is that, at least in Java, there is JAXB, which is maintained by Sun/Oracle/IBM, and which is therefore very feature-rich and also has a good performance. So, in my communication to the kernel I use JAXB, didn't need much code to implement that, only annotations in the RM-source. JAXB works in two ways, in and out. I always prefer, as much as possible, to stick to code that is professionally maintained to the big market-parties. But, the problem came up, that I would not have an easy way to validate data against the archetypes. That is why I wrote an object-parser, which has a result the exact same object-scheme as the dadl-parser. I don't need the dadl-parser, and also no dadl-binding. >From that point on, I can go on with the original code. regards Bert _______________________________________________ openEHR-implementers mailing list openEHR-implementers@openehr.org http://lists.chime.ucl.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/openehr-implementers