Mailing-List: contact users-help@isis.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: users@isis.apache.org
From: Kambiz Darabi <darabi@m-creations.com>
To: Dan Haywood <dan@haywood-associates.co.uk>
Cc: users <users@isis.apache.org>
Subject: Re: Spiro support in Isis
References: <87r3n2f4e3.fsf@kd-mb.m-creations.int>
	<CALJOYLHhzmc63-vTitrCAT=xpRLhfWHp8_FaMs3AzwFSXXVG8Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2015 18:34:50 +0200
In-Reply-To: 
 <CALJOYLHhzmc63-vTitrCAT=xpRLhfWHp8_FaMs3AzwFSXXVG8Q@mail.gmail.com>
	(Dan Haywood's message of "Mon, 17 Aug 2015 16:32:07 +0100")
Message-ID: <87bncm1p05.fsf@kd-mb.m-creations.int>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.4 (gnu/linux)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain

Hi Dan,

I wanted to ask whether you had the time to look into this.

If not, I would be willing to invest some time, but would need a bit of
advice on how to tackle it.

Thanks


Kambiz

On 2015-08-17 17:32 CEST, Dan Haywood <dan@haywood-associates.co.uk> wrote:

> Hi Kambiz,
> No, there isn't support at the moment.
>
> I would imagine it would probably take a couple of days to implement for
> me, perhaps less. For someone less familiar with the code, perhaps double
> that.
>
> Once I have 1.9.0 released (in the next week hopefully) I'll spend a couple
> of evenings looking at it to see if I can "break the back of it" (eg that
> you might finish it off if you really need the feature).
>
> Hope that sounds OK to you..
>
> Cheers, Dan
> On 17 Aug 2015 14:09, "Kambiz Darabi" <darabi@m-creations.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> is Isis capable of supporting the simple domain model as described in
>> section 1.25.1 of the RO spec?
>>
>> I ask because of Richard Pawson's answer to my question on github:
>>
>> https://github.com/SpiroLibraries/Spiro.Modern/issues/2
>>
>> > I'm afraid this is not going to be straightforward. Either Isis needs
>> > to support the 'simple' domain model (my strong preference!), or Spiro
>> > needs to be extended to work with the formal model (a lot of change -
>> > and, inherently, much more complex than working with the simple
>> > approach). I have suggested to Dan that in the next version of the RO
>> > spec that the Simple domain model should be mandatory and the formal
>> > one an optional extra.
>>
>> If there is no built-in support, I would be interested in an estimate of
>> how much effort would be needed to implement that functionality.
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>>
>> Kambiz
>>