I got this while importing the classes... any ideas?

edit: Nevermind, I just hit back then import again.  It worked.  /shrug


HTTP/1.1 200 OK
Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8
Set-Cookie: CSPSESSIONID-SP-57772-UP-csp-sys-=008000010000rGtpFVtkj20000ApozxNVGmmNXNIMCWko6aQ--; path=/csp/sys/;  httpOnly;
DATE: Mon, 13 Mar 2017 15:10:15 GMT
EXPIRES: Thu, 29 Oct 1998 17:04:19 GMT
PRAGMA: no-cache
Transfer-Encoding: chunked
Set-Cookie: CSPWSERVERID=fcc28c73d69ac223d5063debc53f259f1ee904fe; path=/; httpOnly;
<P><P><B><FONT COLOR="RED">CSP application did not respond within the timeout period</FONT></B><P>
The processing of the request was interrupted

Based on the docs you linked, I found /csp/healthshare/<namespace>/EnsPortal.Deployment.DeployProductionChanges.zen

This allowed me to select a "Deployment" and successfully accomplish my goal.


This is terribly unintuitive.  Not only is the context completely different, but there is no parity among terminology.  To improve this, there are two options:

1. Change the "Export" process.  First, it should not be called "Export", it should be called "Create a Deployment" or "Create Deployment Package".  Second, it should not be in the actions for the adapter/operation, it should be in the main Ensemble menu.

2. Change the "Import" process. First, it should be called "Import" and not "Deployment".  Second, it should be in the context of the production, located in a similar place to the Export button.  Ideally, you would click "Production Settings" and there would be an "Import" button there.

I could probably be convinced either way, however at some point you have to wonder, if a post has so many disparate threads/conversations, is the topic too vague?  Perhaps a new post is warranted.

I think of both extremes.  Reddit is 100% threaded and gets very out of hand, but StackOverflow is only minimally threaded (each answer has comments).  I think it works well there, but I suppose these forums fall somewhere in between.  It's not a simple question/answer site, but a place for discussions as well.  I grew up on dial up BBSs and later phpBB though, and non-threaded conversations were just a way of life that I never noticed a problem with.

As Evgeny said, perhaps we just wait for it to be a problem, then try to come up with a creative solution.


edit: for what it's worth, many modern forums have the option of "Flat, Threaded or Hybrid" views.  Also, here's an interesting take on the subject.

I may have realized what I was missing. These "documents" are generated on the fly so I guess you wouldn't be able to reference a static table of document contents.  I was led to this by running the following query on the first 15k rows or so.

SELECT DocumentId, HomeCommunityId, RepositoryId, count(AggregationId)
FROM HS_IHE_ATNA_Repository.Document
GROUP BY DocumentId, HomeCommunityId, RepositoryId

These are the numbers of duplicates




ie, only 2 documents were duplicated 8 times.  The vast majority only had a single entry. Still, if we extrapolate this out, that's a lot of duplicated data in my opinion.  If my math is correct, in this sample, 21% of the documents records are exact duplicates.