Experimental Physics and
Industrial Control System

I do find this question relevant, and we name these records just like
you suggest. I wouldn't be too concerned whether an operator who may
at some point see records like that understands what e.g. a calcout
is, you can documents what the record means when the time comes.

To be clearer, for example, if I consider the so-called device "LEB1-G-Q12" (Quad 12 of LEBT 1 to guide the beam), I could therefore define "LEB1-G-Q12:Current" or "LEB1-G-Q12:Status." Let us imagine that to implement the device I must introduce internal records (calc, fanout ...) : is it a good approach to name them "LEB1-G-Q12:IntCalc1", LEB1-G-Q12:IntCalc2","LEB1-G-Q12:IntFanout1" ("Int" for "Internal record") ? And how can I solve the case when some internal record belong to the processing chains of two different devices ? Also, I am aware that if later my "internal record" has to be seen by the operator either its name becomes meaningless or I have to rename the record (without forgetting "internal" clients such as the sequencer for example ...).

References:

Naming conventions for devices and Epics records (more ...) Lecorche Eric

Navigate by Date:

Prev: Re: Ethernet electrical isolation Eric Norum

Next: Re: Naming conventions for devices and Epics records (more ...) Benjamin Franksen

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: Naming conventions for devices and Epics records (more ...) Lecorche Eric

Next: Re: Naming conventions for devices and Epics records (more ...) Benjamin Franksen

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