EPICS Controls Argonne National Laboratory

Experimental Physics and
Industrial Control System

2002  2003  2004  <20052006  2007  2008  2009  2010  2011  2012  2013  2014  2015  2016  2017  2018  2019  2020  2021  2022  2023  2024  Index 2002  2003  2004  <20052006  2007  2008  2009  2010  2011  2012  2013  2014  2015  2016  2017  2018  2019  2020  2021  2022  2023  2024 
<== Date ==> <== Thread ==>

Subject: Re: Fundamental Types document
From: Marty Kraimer <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]
Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2005 10:34:05 -0500


Benjamin Franksen wrote:

Hello,

I must say that I strongly agree with most of Jeff's arguments. (Maybe not so much the 'unsigned' story, but practically everything else).

The current definition of epicsTypes does NOT include unsigned types.
The reason is Java. If we allow unsigned types it makes it very difficult to complely support Java.

The only place we see that V3 epics records need unsigned is for bit masks.
However there is a big problem with the mask fields in the the mbbXXX records.
The mask field is 32 bits. How do we handle a 64 bit I/O module?
OK with V4 we can make the mask fields be 64 bits.
But how do we handle a 128 digital I/O module?
Also a 16 bit digital I/O module has many unused bits.

A way to handle this is to make the mask fields an array of octets.
The byte and bit order must still be decided but at least any multiple of 8 bits can be handled.


I am astonished that we have this kind of discussion again. I may be mistaken but I had the impression that it was agreed upon to use DA for IOC internal acess to records and to abandon the efforts Marty started to define internal implementation of epics types until we have got the interfaces right. And that dbd definitions should be compiled into C/C++ code implementing DA interfaces, views, etc.pp.

If indeed DA does not suffice as a (the) generic interface to record fields, as Andrew suggested, then maybe DA should be extended or revised accordingly?

Ben
At some point something other than interfaces has to be created!!
What Andrew and I are attempting is to define a small basic set of standard types including strings and arrays that have built-in support. For these types it should be easy to gererate code that implements dataAccess interfaces to access the data.

Does anyone really want to have record support, device support, etc ALL access data only via dataAccess? That means everything will need to provide it's own set of code to use dataAccess. I am again haunted by Doug's request for "hello world".

Marty


Replies:
RE: Fundamental Types document Jeff Hill
Re: Fundamental Types document Ralph Lange
Re: Fundamental Types document Benjamin Franksen
References:
RE: Fundamental Types document Jeff Hill
Re: Fundamental Types document Benjamin Franksen

Navigate by Date:
Prev: Re: Fundamental Types document Marty Kraimer
Next: RE: Fundamental Types document Jeff Hill
Index: 2002  2003  2004  <20052006  2007  2008  2009  2010  2011  2012  2013  2014  2015  2016  2017  2018  2019  2020  2021  2022  2023  2024 
Navigate by Thread:
Prev: Re: Fundamental Types document Benjamin Franksen
Next: RE: Fundamental Types document Jeff Hill
Index: 2002  2003  2004  <20052006  2007  2008  2009  2010  2011  2012  2013  2014  2015  2016  2017  2018  2019  2020  2021  2022  2023  2024 
ANJ, 02 Feb 2012 Valid HTML 4.01! · Home · News · About · Base · Modules · Extensions · Distributions · Download ·
· Search · EPICS V4 · IRMIS · Talk · Bugs · Documents · Links · Licensing ·