Re: And while we’re on the subject…

I would also like to see several other things:

1.  

A NetConfig that is a directory with config files in it — I have mentioned this before but I would like to see the information for each process in a separate file and the information for each protocol thread in a separate file.  This would allow greater automation in the development and maintenance of interfaces.  It might even be nice to have the route/xlate information in a separate file.  

Why, you ask….well, there are several reasons, you could then add a new thread by added it to the NetConfig directory, the GUI could load only the files that you needed…the list goes on and on.  It might even be better to have the NetConfig be a hierarchical structure vis-a-vis the HL7 or XML format directory structures.

2.

Make the configuration tools capable of editing local files instead of requiring a connection to the server.  Yeah, I know, managing the issues related to two developers modifying the same sight at the same time would be difficult (unless the NetConfig were a directory structure…see above).  It would be much better, though, to be able to use the GUI’s (and maybe the testing tool) directly within a client machine.  The development of interfaces would go much quicker and easier.  The only benefit to requiring the server connection is that it keeps me (us) from doing much development after hours.  Whether this is a benefit or not certainly depends on who you ask…

Well, that is all that I have the energy for tonight…LOL