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: Type descriptor vs. enum
From: "Liyu, Andrei" <[email protected]>
To: EPICS Core Talk <[email protected]>
Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2005 11:42:43 -0400
	I like idea to call CAS directly! 

	I suppose.
	1. "Call CAS directly" is not completely correct. IOC must have
server level. Look - when a record calls Monitor(), server level has
list of clients and checks subscribers for the record. Am I correct?
	2. CA protocol works with memory. In record base there is
wrapper for different type structure. Particle record type fills end of
memory. There is similar splitting in client side. 
	3. CAS is part of server level. Server level has the same are
errlog, archive, alarm, timing, seach engine for IOC records (of any
type - need define only head) and clients.

	Maybe you will be VERY KINDLY and will think about definition of
server level API. And two levels on CA client side. After that Epics
users get freedom
	- to use standard types and records. It will be useful for a lot
of application that haven't any conflict. And you could really define
MIN types for MAX usages!
	- to do what they want for some applications. And raw dataAccess
(by Marty Kramer's definition) is very acceptable answer. Of course,
control system developers will be responsible for correct usage on both
sides in this case.

	You have had code with well structure!!! I am about sure it is
very easy to implement :-)

Have a good day, Andrei.


-----Original Message-----
From: Dalesio, Leo `Bob` [mailto:[email protected]] 
Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2005 10:47 AM
To: Kasemir, Kay; EPICS Core Talk
Subject: RE: Type descriptor vs. enum

 
There are use cases on the wiki.

There are two thoughts on this
-- you are told the type

-- you are not told the type

Could we work out the use cases with either approach?
Ben - you handle -- not told the type
Kay - you handle -- told the type
For the first level calls to channel access

Jeff - you handle how these calls tie into the existing library design

We were going to complete the use cases in two weeks - this is week one.

Thanks,
Bob


Navigate by Date:
Prev: Re: Standard String Kay-Uwe Kasemir
Next: Re: Standard String Andrew Johnson
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: Type descriptor vs. enum Benjamin Franksen
Next: ICE and TIPC Marty Kraimer
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 ·