From: Charlie McCay [charlie@ramseysystems.co.uk]
Sent: Monday, February 21, 2005 12:40 PM
To: 'Rene Spronk (Ringholm)'; mnm@lists.hl7.org
Cc: subgroup_Infrastructure@lists.hl7.org.uk; Karen Van Hentenryck (HL7)
Subject: Moving versionCode and interactionId from Message to
Transmission class -- was -- RE: HARMONIZATION - CQ Proposal for March

Rene

This proposal has backwards compatibility issues associated with it -- is there any overpowering reason why versionCode and interactionId must be removed from Message class -- rather than being left there as well, and being inherited from the Transmission class when that is used?  

One thing that we have already learnt in the UK implementations is that version compatibility is a big deal -- particularly in the wrappers that affect all implementations.

I have not been following the transmission developments closely but this looks to me like a change that will leave implementations being unable to support existing wrappers with new payloads that require other changes that have been approved in the RIM -- thus making it more difficult for affiliates that have a growing installed base to support the needs of their members in a way that minimises the impact of version change.

I have copied this to Karen in the hope that it can be logged as a comment against the harmonisation request and if it is not closed beforehand can be brought to the attention of those voting at the harmonisation meeting.

All the best

Charlie 


> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-mnm@lists.hl7.org
> [mailto:owner-mnm@lists.hl7.org] On Behalf Of Rene Spronk (Ringholm)
> Sent: 18 February 2005 17:26
> To: Karen Van Hentenryck (HL7); mnm@lists.hl7.org
> Subject: HARMONIZATION - CQ Proposal for March
> 
> Karen,
> 
> Please add the issue below to the list of CQ Harmonization items for 
> the March 2005 Harmonization meeting.
> 
> TTYL,
> 
> -Rene
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> ----------
> Issue: "Batches"
> 
> CQ has two requests:
> 1. Move the versionCode attribute from the Message class to the 
> Transmission class.
> 2. Move the interactionId attribute from the Message class to the 
> Transmission class.
> 
> These changes allow versionCode and interactionId to be used in both 
> Message and Batch.
> 
> The first item is motivated by the need to have a versionCode in the 
> batchwrapper, in order for the receiver to know what attributes the 
> Batch class has.
> 
> The interactionId is desirable for reasons of consistency; batches 
> (like accept NAKs) will have a fixed interactionID, batch 
> acknowledgements (itself a batch) will have a different interactionID.
> 
> Background information related to Batches and Batch acknowledgements 
> can be found in CQ Proposal 601, see the CQ documents download page. 
> Batches are slated to be included in
> R2 of the MCCI domain.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ************************************************
> You are currently subscribed to mnm@lists.hl7.org as 
> charlie@ramseysystems.co.uk To unsubscribe from this list, send a 
> blank email to leave-mnm-8565L@lists.hl7.org To access the Archives of 
> this list, go to: http://lists.hl7.org/read/?forum=mnm
> To access your List Server profile and subscriptions, go to: 
> http://lists.hl7.org/read/login


