Experimental Physics and
Industrial Control System

Marty Kraimer <[email protected]> · Mon, 11 Jul 2005 07:55:28 -0500

Andrew Johnson wrote:

I like Ben's idea of introducing type parameters into the DBD file,

but I want to make some changes to his struct support. I'd like to

distinguish between a struct (which should only contain plain data)

and a class (which also has methods that have to be implemented in C++

code). It would obviously save effort if we only have to write the

alarm limits checking code once as a template, which can then be

instanciated for all types as needed, and this starts to break up a

record into smaller modules that have a defined functionality. The

parent record type code would still be responsible for connecting all

of the modules together into a cohesive whole record.

I think the DBD files should only define structs, i.e. only describe data.

I do not see why implementing "record fragment" support like alarm

checking requires class definitions in DBD files. The only thing that

should appear in the DBD file is the struct containing the data.

Also templates should not appear in the DBD files. This can be done by

properly defining interfaces which are implemented by "record fragment".

There should not be ANY language specific definitions in DBD or DB files.

I also wonder how much C++ STL we should allow into record support.

Marty