Stream: implementers
Topic: Client 'Contract'
Kevin Mayfield (Sep 16 2017 at 21:17):
A server has a composition. Does a consumer/client of stating what functionality it needs to work.
Kevin Mayfield (Sep 16 2017 at 21:23):
For example: if I wanted my server to work with clinfhir. I would assume their is a number of resources and queries my server would need to implement to work. We're looking at contract driven development as a way of defining compatibility.
Lloyd McKenzie (Sep 17 2017 at 03:29):
Servers have to have a CapabilityStatement. Clients can and should have one and we're looking at setting up an operation that allows a server to submit its own and a server's and see if they're sufficiently aligned.
Kevin Mayfield (Sep 18 2017 at 14:36):
Thanks
John Moehrke (Sep 18 2017 at 14:38):
@Lloyd McKenzie did you mean a client can submit their own CapabilityStatement to a server to have it evaluated via a operation?
Kevin Mayfield (Sep 18 2017 at 14:40):
More from a https://martinfowler.com/articles/consumerDrivenContracts.html point of view. We could state what contract (minimum conformance) should be supported by both client and server, possibly for connectathon's. It's a bit theoretical at the moment though.
Lloyd McKenzie (Sep 18 2017 at 17:33):
The operation wouldn't necessarily be run on the server you're wanting to talk to.
Grahame Grieve (Sep 18 2017 at 21:09):
http://build.fhir.org/capabilitystatement-operations.html#5.2.12.2
Ewout Kramer (Sep 26 2017 at 11:11):
If I remember correctly, @Mark Kramer has written a paper about doing this...
Last updated: Apr 12 2022 at 19:14 UTC
