On 04/11/2014 11:21, Benjamin Franksen wrote:
how do you handle a client writing NaN to an analog record (which
probably happens by accident)? My intuition tells me that the proper
response for the record is to go into an INVALID status, but apparently
this is not what happens by default...
Hm...
I would say, analog records are numerical, so setting it to not-a-number
should make the record undefined, setting the severity to INVALID (3.14)
or UDFS (3.15).
Would that match your idea?
Driving the record output could then configured in the regular way,
using IVOA/IVOV.
What do you think? Would that resolve yours and Götz' concerns?
Cheers,
~Ralph
- References:
- NaN and analog records Benjamin Franksen
- Navigate by Date:
- Prev:
Re: NaN and analog records Benjamin Franksen
- Next:
RE: NaN and analog records michael.abbott
- 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: NaN and analog records Dirk Zimoch
- Next:
Re: NaN and analog records Andrew Johnson
- 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
|