EPICS Home EPICS Controls Argonne National Laboratory

Experimental Physics and
Industrial Control System

Format page
for printing


Search Tech-talk
1994  1995  1996  1997  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  1996  1997  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: Re: CA protocol documentation.
From: Brian Tieman <[email protected]>
To: Ralph Lange <[email protected]>, tech-talk <[email protected]>
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2002 08:23:43 -0600
Ralph,

You can apologize for the rough tone all you want, but I find this attitude towards documentation appaling. That's not to say I think the documentation should be widely availiable--in fact, I think it should not be for the exact reasons you specify.

However, knowing that there is one and only one guru who knows what's going on scares the begeezes out of me. As someone who implements Epics based systems--primarily with the PCAS, but with iocCore as well, I find it disconcerting every time a problem is posted to this list. The first few responses--if any--are from well meaning, knowledgable, experienced users offering what amounts to an educated guess--it can't be much more than that because the internals of CA are unknown. Then, perhaps a week later, the guru responds with the only answer I find I can trust.

I know Jeff is busy and I'm not saying he has to offer 24-7 tech support, but knowing he is the only guy who understands the CA protocol--the hing-pin of EPICS--makes me wonder what shape the community would be in were, God forbid, something to happen to him. Is that the point where Epics ceases to exist? Does someone step in to do their best only to have the "official" Epics CA libraries become buggy due to lack of knowledge/experience? Do we then get an open protocol where people who need to can muck about?

Again, I'm not saying the protocol specification needs to be generally distributed, but I would sleep better at night if I knew it were written down somewhere and there was at least one other individual spending some amount of time developing with it.

Sorry for my tone, but I manage several projects on which I am the only person who knows how they work. I've fought for years to try and get someone else involved to understand them in case I leave. Having failed that, I have at least documented my efforts to the best of my ability such that someone else might have a fighting chance to take over after me--it's the only responsible thing to do.

Brian Tieman

Ralph Lange wrote:

>> I'm not sure if the information exists anywhere else >> but in the source code and with Jeff Hill. I don't recall

> That is what I thought at first place.

>> (over ten years) seeing a document that describes >> the internals of the protocol - unless Jeff alluded >> to it in some collaboration meeting.

> Is there any interest on such a document? Or a soruce code may be enough.

There is some intention in this.

Since the CA protocol is not well documented, everyone is forced to use
the CA libraries that come with base. Thus we are able to develop and
improve details of the network protocol without the overhead of an
official protocol change.

As soon as documentation exists, people will start writing their own
libraries. In contrast to the original libraries these will be buggy,
unstable and not compatible with older/newer versions of CA.

Nevertheless, the authors will blame CA for this, flood tech talk with
their questions and absorb valueable manpower to solve problems that
wouldn't exist if they used the original libraries.

Use the CA libraries from base. Don't start writing your own. Just don't.

I think leaving the source code as the only documentation keeps the
scare-off factor on an adequate level. We're open source, not open
protocol.

Cheers,
Ralph

ps. Sorry for the rough tone, but I think opening this would really be a
serious danger. If CA gets suspected of being a flaky protocol, we're in
trouble.




Replies:
Re: CA protocol documentation. Bob Dalesio
References:
CA protocol documentation. Noboru Yamamoto
Re: CA protocol documentation. Peregrine M. McGehee
Re: CA protocol documentation. Noboru Yamamoto
Re: CA protocol documentation. Peregrine M. McGehee
Re: CA protocol documentation. Noboru Yamamoto
Re: CA protocol documentation. Ralph Lange
Navigate by Date:
Prev: Re: CA protocol documentation. Bob Dalesio
Next: Re: CA protocol documentation. Bob Dalesio
Index: 1994  1995  1996  1997  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: CA protocol documentation. Ralph Lange
Next: Re: CA protocol documentation. Bob Dalesio
Index: 1994  1995  1996  1997  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 ·