2002 2003 2004 <2005> 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 | Index | 2002 2003 2004 <2005> 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 |
<== Date ==> | <== Thread ==> |
---|
Subject: | Base V4 Database: Alarms for analog type records |
From: | Ralph Lange <[email protected]> |
To: | Marty Kraimer <[email protected]> |
Cc: | Bob Dalesio <[email protected]>, Ned Arnold <[email protected]>, Andrew Johnson <[email protected]>, Eric Norum <[email protected]>, Janet Anderson <[email protected]>, Jeff Hill <[email protected]>, Matej Sekoranja <[email protected]>, Ken Evans <[email protected]>, Benjamin Franksen <[email protected]> |
Date: | Thu, 03 Mar 2005 15:00:50 +0100 |
Hi all,I find that for all analog type records, the fixed number of alarm limits and severities is a constraint that should be removed.
I would rather have the analog alarms organized like a breakpoint table, consisting of a series of ranges with a severity (and a status?) for each. The default would be no table, which is the complete range being "NO_ALARM".
Maybe some breakpoint table code and parsing can be re-used.The hard part is probably that CA and the clients on the other end would have to reflect this structure, which is not a fixed-number set of attributes anymore. Rather an array of (value, value, (status?), severity) structures.
The other open question is: Changing alarm limits is not just setting a field anymore, it means reloading a breakpoint table. Is that acceptable? Must the alarm limits be writable through CA?
What do you think? Ralph -- Ralph Lange [email protected] Tel: +49 30 6392-2117 BESSY Controls Group www.bessy.de Fax: ... -4859