Experimental Physics and
Industrial Control System

One major problem is that generic code can't know whether it is safe to re-run
a put that fails for this reason or not.  If there is significant I/O or other
processing in the chain of records that leads up to the record that's busy
then it might *not* be safe to repeat the put operation.  It doesn't matter
where we propose to put the retry code, the same issue arises; only the person
designing the overall system can work out what the correct response is.

Ben's proposal at least makes it possible for the issue to be detected by a
client so that an application-specific decision can be made when this happens.

This is definitely a 3.15 (or later) change by the way, and there is already a
major modification to the putNotify code in the queue in front of this so I'm
not going to be able to apply Ben's changes for some time, giving us a chance
to work out the consequences properly.

References:

Re: ca_put_callback once again Tim Mooney

Re: ca_put_callback once again Benjamin Franksen

RE: ca_put_callback once again Jeff Hill

Re: ca_put_callback once again Andrew Johnson

Navigate by Date:

Prev: RE: subrecord INPx Hinko Kocevar

Next: [SOLVED] RE: subrecord INPx Hinko Kocevar

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_put_callback once again Andrew Johnson

Next: RE: ca_put_callback once again Jeff Hill

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