EPICS Controls Argonne National Laboratory

Experimental Physics and
Industrial Control System

1994  1995  <19961997  1998  1999  2000  2001  2002  2003  2004  2005  2006  2007  2008  2009  2010  2011  2012  2013  2014  2015  2016  2017  2018  2019  2020  2021  2022  2023  2024  Index 1994  1995  <19961997  1998  1999  2000  2001  2002  2003  2004  2005  2006  2007  2008  2009  2010  2011  2012  2013  2014  2015  2016  2017  2018  2019  2020  2021  2022  2023  2024 
<== Date ==> <== Thread ==>

Subject: IP support
From: [email protected] (Jim B. Kowalkowski)
To: [email protected]
Date: Fri, 13 Dec 1996 07:58:20 -0600
I've been reading the IP support mail messages over the last couple of
hours on tech-talk and I guess I have a question about all of it and a
few comments.  I've read through all of your stuff, so I might as well
throw my stuff out here too.

I see three basic IP developments in process, maybe four:
 1) telescope community (Andrew/Peregrine)
 2) IRM developments and other (Matthias/DESY/Fermilab)
 3) HiDEOS

My main question is this: What is the main reason that you (supporters and
users of 1 and 2) have dismissed HiDEOS?  Much (not all) of the development
in 1 and 2 has been done after the HiDEOS development.  I'm really not trying
to sell HiDEOS or anything, I just want feedback.

I think it would be nice if we could have a unified IP support package
so that everyone using IP could easily configure there system.  Look
what happens now and probably even worse in the future.  I want to
run Profibus, GPIB, and relays, I need to get the support for
all three of the above packages.  Each of these has a different
configuration mechanism.  This seems like a real hassle.

I beleive one person told me that C++ was the reason for not considering
HIDEOS.  It seems that the future direction of vxWorks (Tornado), and
in my opinion EPICS, is C++.  Look at CDEV and the portable CA server.  I
beleive that these packages would be more difficult to understand, use,
and maintain without C++.

I really wish we could discuss merging all the developments into one
package, so that everyone could benefit when a new IP module driver is
written.  It is my opinion that drivers for many of the IP modules are
not easy to write correctly.

Bill Brown:
> There was some talk at the CERN meeting about support for IP packs under
> _EPICS_ (as opposed to under HIDEOS).

I don't understand this.  Everything under HIDEOS runs under EPICS. 
Basically HiDEOS is the drv support and there is dev support for the
particular modules.

Jim



Navigate by Date:
Prev: Re: EPICS vs. IP packs watson
Next: Re: IP support watson
Index: 1994  1995  <19961997  1998  1999  2000  2001  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: EPICS vs. IP packs Matthias Clausen DESY -MKS-2/KRYK-
Next: Re: IP support watson
Index: 1994  1995  <19961997  1998  1999  2000  2001  2002  2003  2004  2005  2006  2007  2008  2009  2010  2011  2012  2013  2014  2015  2016  2017  2018  2019  2020  2021  2022  2023  2024 
ANJ, 10 Aug 2010 Valid HTML 4.01! · Home · News · About · Base · Modules · Extensions · Distributions · Download ·
· Search · EPICS V4 · IRMIS · Talk · Bugs · Documents · Links · Licensing ·