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: Record support and user-defined fields
From: Andrew Johnson <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]
Date: Fri, 08 Jul 2005 13:19:27 -0500
Benjamin Franksen wrote:

Another point: What is the use of the method definition, apart from generating a C++ member declaration? If there is no other use, we can avoid it by using a regular top-level procedure, as shown in my proposal on the wiki. I ask because I find it somewhat ugly to cite a foreign language (C++) term inside the dbd file. I know, we already do this for DBF_NO_ACCESS fields, but I never liked that one either (and I believe it can be avoided, too).

It also documents the methods available for the record support user, and means we don't have to have your parallel xxxStructSupport.h file which contains just those declarations. The DBD file contains the *complete* interface to the structure and its methods, and the record support code that calls it is easier to understand. If the method is short enough it could even be defined inline inside the string itself..

It would be possible to replace the line
    method("STATUS constrain(ValType &value)")
with something like
    method(constrain) {
        returns(STATUS)
        argument(value, reference(ValType))
    }
but IMHO that would be pointless - it's less flexible, a lot more effort to parse and convert, and totally unnecessary since the only direct interface we're providing to the structure is through C++ code anyway.

One minor detail: We should have a consistent scheme for C/C++ entities generated from dbd definitions.

Agreed, although we might need reminding about that later once we get to that level of detail.

Wow. A dedicated DBD/DB extension language. Let me think a while about /that/ one, before I comment...

Please don't spend time on that, IMHO it's way too ambitious to ever happen (unless you're also offering to do all the work implementing it as well...).

- Andrew
--
Podiabombastic: The tendency to shoot oneself in the foot.

Replies:
Re: Record support and user-defined fields Benjamin Franksen
References:
V4 iocRecord: forward linking Ralph Lange
Re: Record support and user-defined fields Benjamin Franksen
Re: Record support and user-defined fields Andrew Johnson
Re: Record support and user-defined fields Benjamin Franksen

Navigate by Date:
Prev: Re: V4 EpicsString Andrew Johnson
Next: Re: Record support and user-defined fields Benjamin Franksen
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: Record support and user-defined fields Benjamin Franksen
Next: Re: Record support and user-defined fields Benjamin Franksen
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 ·