Subject: |
Re: Record support and user-defined fields |
From: |
Kay-Uwe Kasemir <[email protected]> |
To: |
EPICS Core Talk <[email protected]> |
Date: |
Wed, 06 Jul 2005 10:01:29 -0400 |
Hi Ben:
Thanks for your comments, I think I got them all added
to the user-defined-fields page.
The whole point is to get the pros & cons collected,
so that we can then decide what we need and in what order.
I see good reasons for both adding fields to record instances
(easy to use, but limited functionality)
and having building blocks for new records
(requires more forethought but also more options).
For example, the current AI, AO, CALC, CALCOUT, SUB, DFANOUT
records all have very much the same code for handling the
alarms via LOLO, ..., HIHI, LLSV, ..., HHSV.
The necessary rewrite of the database for V4
would benefit from only having to write that once
and then build those records by invoking the same 'analogAlarms' code.
Thanks,
-Kay
- Replies:
- Re: Record support and user-defined fields Benjamin Franksen
- Re: Record support and user-defined fields Andrew Johnson
- References:
- V4 iocRecord: forward linking Ralph Lange
- Re: Record support and user-defined fields Benjamin Franksen
- Re: Record support and user-defined fields Kay-Uwe Kasemir
- Re: Record support and user-defined fields Benjamin Franksen
- Navigate by Date:
- Prev:
Re: Record support and user-defined fields Benjamin Franksen
- Next:
V4 Design: Record Processing Marty Kraimer
- Index:
2002
2003
2004
<2005>
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
- Navigate by Thread:
- Prev:
Re: Record support and user-defined fields Benjamin Franksen
- Next:
Re: Record support and user-defined fields Benjamin Franksen
- Index:
2002
2003
2004
<2005>
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
|