Difference between revisions of "V4 2nd Design Meeting Notes"
RalphLange (talk | contribs) m |
RalphLange (talk | contribs) m (→Hierarchies) |
||
| Line 29: | Line 29: | ||
==== Hierarchies ==== | ==== Hierarchies ==== | ||
Jeff envisions a "global" hierarchical namespace, where a request for quad4.ps2.current.analogValue.val would be answered by a "virtual" record that forwards and collects things from different records. Such a virtual could reside on a different node. It is unclear | Jeff envisions a "global" hierarchical namespace, where a request for quad4.ps2.current.analogValue.val would be answered by a "virtual" record that forwards and collects things from different records. Such a virtual could reside on a different node. (I would call it part of middleware functionality.) It is unclear who would be writing such a record. | ||
Agreement on: | |||
''Everything before the first dot is a record name.'' | |||
V3 compatibility records will define views like | V3 compatibility records will define views like | ||
| Line 36: | Line 39: | ||
} | } | ||
so that clients can still use the old syntax of <recordName>.<fieldName> to access fields. | so that clients can still use the old syntax of <recordName>.<fieldName> to access fields. | ||
Programmatic views will accept arguments (in parantheses). I.e. the programmatic "field" view will take the field name as an argument, as in | |||
xxx.field(displayLimit) | |||
Subproperties will be addressed using multiple dots, as in | |||
xxx.value.displayLimits.upper | |||
(This might map to a numeric property address - using an array of propertyIds - when transferred over CA.) | |||
Clients should be able to find out if a certain property implements "analog", "enumerated", or "string" behaviour. (To make handling unknown properties easier .) Making the IOC answer these kind of questions induces a number of problems (versioning etc.) It might be possible to implement these "types" of properties as a conveniency layer library on the client side. | |||
Revision as of 21:35, 11 July 2005
2nd Design Meeting (APS) - Notes
Who is the customer?
As there are no big machines coming up and lots of existing installations, V4 will be targeting the whole community.
Compatibility and conversion issues
V4 will not support 68k processors under Tornado2, only under RTEMS. (There might be memory footprint issues, though.)
Lower limit: 8MB/68k or 16MB/coldfire - i.e. must support small and embedded systems.
Gateways will be used to convert CA connections between V3 and V4 within one system.
We should provide a set of asara records (asara = as similar as reasonably achievable) providing V3 behaviour that can be used for automatic conversion of existing V3 databases.
DBD syntax and generation
Building blocks
It seems wrong to have real C++ declarations within the dbd file. The interface definitions should rather reside in a separate header file. (That way it would be easier to e.g. have the interfaces in different languages.)
Declarations of fields and views
The V3 prompt declaration will be replaced by a "hint" or "help" text that can be applied to any entity defined in the dbd language (not just fields). Tools may use that text to display bubble help or similar things.
The V3 group declaration will be replaced by views that can be used by the configuration tool to group things into hierarchies.
Hierarchies
Jeff envisions a "global" hierarchical namespace, where a request for quad4.ps2.current.analogValue.val would be answered by a "virtual" record that forwards and collects things from different records. Such a virtual could reside on a different node. (I would call it part of middleware functionality.) It is unclear who would be writing such a record.
Agreement on: Everything before the first dot is a record name.
V3 compatibility records will define views like
view (HIHI) {
property (....)
}
so that clients can still use the old syntax of <recordName>.<fieldName> to access fields.
Programmatic views will accept arguments (in parantheses). I.e. the programmatic "field" view will take the field name as an argument, as in
xxx.field(displayLimit)
Subproperties will be addressed using multiple dots, as in
xxx.value.displayLimits.upper
(This might map to a numeric property address - using an array of propertyIds - when transferred over CA.)
Clients should be able to find out if a certain property implements "analog", "enumerated", or "string" behaviour. (To make handling unknown properties easier .) Making the IOC answer these kind of questions induces a number of problems (versioning etc.) It might be possible to implement these "types" of properties as a conveniency layer library on the client side.
