I wonder if there is a way to add a therapeutic class (see definition with code DC) to a medication?
Definition here as well:
Description: A categorization of medicinal products by their
therapeutic properties and/or main therapeutic use.
There's no element for this, so you'll have to add an extension
Related
I have a custom type that is abstract.
As it seems that leads to it not getting its own block_prefix in the hierarchy.
So I thought I would put that into configureOptions.
But in the deriving classes I do occassionally also have to define configureOptions which then again leads to either overwriting the parent method which defeats the purpose. Or if I call it explicitly
with parent::configureOptions the system will put the custom prefix above (in the sense of "higher priority") the automatically generated prefix of the implementing class which I obviously do not want.
Is there a solution to this problem that is not "make the parent class not abstract"?
I say that because if possible I don't want to loose the enforcement of the contract given by the abstract parent-class.
EDIT: I realized that it was a false assumption I made that making the base class non-abstract would lead to the addition of the class name as block-prefix.
I have a question regarding UML Class diagrams.
I know I can just use one name which refers to both sides but my question is:
Is it necessary to show association names at both sides of an association when it is uni directional?
Association ends are properties (i.e., "variables"). When a class owns a property and the property is unnamed, that could be a problem. In contrast, when an association owns an unnamed property, that's not really a problem. You don't need to specify a name for association-owned properties.
Here's an example. I've made MagicDraw show association-end properties as attributes as well, just to make a point:
Notice how theB shows up as a property in class A and at the end of the association with class B. That's because they are two different ways of showing the same property. (It's a special way of showing association-end properties that we normally don't turn on in the tool.) Also notice how class C has an unnamed property inside the box and at the end of the association with class A. Again, that's two different ways to show the same property. How would you implement that unnamed property in a programming language? That could be a problem, right?
Another thing to notice is that class B does not have an attribute called theA, and class A does not have an attribute called theC. That's because those properties are non-navigable and the associations own those properties.
Conflating navigability and property ownership has become deprecated in UML. Recently, the UML spec introduced "association dot notation" to indicate property ownership. (A dot at the end means the class owns the property.) Personally, I never had a problem with the conflation, and I hate the new dot notation. Many tools do not support it, and I think it's downright ugly. Moreover, a diagram that has no dots on it is ambiguous. You can't tell whether it was drawn before or after dots were introduced to the spec!
In PDN, in the System Architect Essentials II course they have mentioned Dual inheritance is conceptually similar to single inheritance as many programming languages. What is pattern inheritance and directed inheritance? What is the difference between them?
Well in Pega PRPC, there are two types of inheritance:
Directed Inheritance
Pattern Inheritance
Pattern Inheritance is Inheritance on naming convention, where as Directed inheritance is external or advanced inheritance.
Pattern Inheritance is given preference above Directed Inheritance. As per Pega, if PRPC needs to find RULES (reusable components) which a particular class can use or have access to, first they search through the pattern inheritance. Which is nothing but, the naming convention followed to name a particular RULE in Pega. If PRPC do not find the RULE through the pattern inheritance, it will search the RULE in Directed inheritance.
For example, While naming a RULE in Pega, we use Org-Sub-Work-ClassName, This means, ClassName is inherited from Org-Sub-Work class as well as it is part of Work-Cover-. If we see the inheritance of this class, This will show as:
Short Description | Name
|
ClassName | Org-Sub-Work-ClassName
Work (Default Work Pool) | Org-Sub-Work
HRServices Namespace | Org-Sub
Top Level Class | Org
Cover classes | Work-Cover-
Work classes | Work-
#baseclass | #baseclass
If PRPC, needs to search for a RULE for ClassName, it will first search in Org-Sub-Work, if it is not found, then the search will be made in Org-Sub, if the RULE is not found there as well, it will search in Org. Once, it is not found, PRPC will start searching in Work-Cover-; Not found, next match in Work-. If not found in Work-, it has to be there declared in #baseclass, else it will mark it as not present.
Adding to above and to conclude, the above ClassName also inherits Work-Cover-, However, the point here to note is in Pega, "There are only classes, NO INTERFACE". Therefore, you can think Work-Cover- of an interface rather than being a normal class. So, we can extend a class and implement an interface.
The descriptions for both strategies can be found here on PDN
Direct inheritance defines behavior of the class and Pattern inheritance defines the classes from which we are inheriting the properties. And by doing so, Pega supports multiple inheritance.
We would like to insert a class between two Alfresco class sys:base and cm:person. What are the options? Like type Party has 2 children, Person(individual) and Organisation, So how to model it as Type Party comes between sys:base and cm:person.
That's bad practice! You should not modify Alfresco's default content model.
Take a look at Aspects - you should be able to create a new aspect & add your aspect to your cm:person nodes
Look at the situation:
Having 4 classes as follows description below, how could I when choosing a Task in OrderService automatically include CheckLists (detail) connected to this Task in OrderCheckList?
OrderService
(1 to 1 relationship with Tasks)
(1-to-many relationship with CheckListsOrder)
Tasks
(1-to-many relationship with checklists)
CheckLists
OrderCheckLists
Thanks!
To include detail editor you can use [EditorAlias(EditorAliases.DetailPropertyEditor)] attribute, but if I am not mistaken this would only work for 1-1 relationships (i might be wrong - check in the documentation)
Also worth looking at is this attribute:
[ExpandObjectMembersAttribute(ExpandObjectMembers.Never)]
Hope this at least points you in a right direction.