Experimental Physics and
Industrial Control System

Marty Kraimer <[email protected]> · Wed, 13 Jul 2005 06:41:59 -0500

Benjamin Franksen wrote:

On Tuesday 12 July 2005 17:52, Tim Mooney wrote:

I liked most of the original proposal, and I'm not sure what the Wiki
page that replaced it is trying to say.  I don't understand how the
PROC field, a blanket command to process the record, is replaceable
by a 'processState' field, which seems not to be a command but merely
a state indicator.  If it is a command, I don't think it helps very
much, because it would require an outside agent to know too much
about how the target record operates.  I don't think we can guess in
advance all the states a record might actually be in anyway.

I think the 'processState' is not to replace PROC (a command field) but

rather to replace PACT (a status field). That is, the record's process

routine decides what to do depending on the current processState. Thus,

whenever record processing would want to suspend operation in order to

wait for an event, it would set processState and return to the caller.

It's a generalization of the way the PACT field is handled in V3.

Marty, please correct me if this is wrong.

You are correct.

Benjamin,

During the developer's meeting yesterday we had a discussion of V4

record processing.

I am attaching the presentation I prepared. Not the 2nd slide which

states that this is not even close to final design.

The V4_Design:_Record_Processing wiki needs major major changes based on

the presentation and especially on yesterday's discussion.

Marty

process.ppt

Experimental Physics and Industrial Control System

Experimental Physics and
Industrial Control System