Experimental Physics and Industrial Control System
|
Kay-Uwe Kasemir wrote:
The current wiki calc example has a default "result" view,
other record types have "value" view.
It doesn't really matter what the name of the default view is, since the
whole point of the default view is purely to determine which one you get
when you just specify "fred". If you know you're pointing at a calc
record you can still say "fred" or "fred.result" and you'll get the same
data, but in general it's advisable to use just "fred" since it permits
me to convert the record to some other type without it affecting your
client (as long as it supports the same properties you're looking at).
Would it make sense to have all records support a "value" view?
No; in V3 every record type must have a VAL field, but it really doesn't
make sense for some record types - the V3 transform record initializes
its VAL field to 0.0 and then ignores it forever after. I want to avoid
this kind of "got to do it even if I don't need it" requirement in V4,
and I'm also encouraging the use of more descriptive names. The "value"
of a calc record could arguably be either the expression itself or its
result, so I thought it appropriate to not have a "value" view at all
(although that particular example was more to demonstrate that the
default view could be called something other than "value").
Should there be default views "value", "control", "display",...
similar to the existing DBR_.. types?
No. A record's default view should contain the union of all of the
display, control and other properties that are appropriate for the
record, so there should never be views called "control" and "display"
that just mirror the existing DBR_ types. If an MEDM widget only wants
the display properties of a channel it should subscribe with a property
catalog that only contains those properties, which avoids their being
sent over the wire unnecessarily.
There will probably be some common conventions we adopt for naming views
-- maybe AI, BI and MBBI records should have "raw" and "engineering"
views and no "value" view (the default views would be "engineering") --
but they should only be used where appropriate.
There is still a question in my head about the distinction between the
terms View and Controller in the MVC model on which I'd appreciate some
input from others - should we allow just any view to be used for a put,
or do we want to have some way of defining which views and/or properties
in a view are permitted? I believe that it's not possible to put a
DBR_CTL_DOUBLE in V3, how should we convert that rule into V4 terms?
- Andrew
--
Podiabombastic: The tendency to shoot oneself in the foot.
- References:
- dataAccess V4 Ca client propertyId questions Marty Kraimer
- Re: dataAccess V4 Ca client propertyId questions Kay-Uwe Kasemir
- Re: dataAccess V4 Ca client propertyId questions Andrew Johnson
- views Kay-Uwe Kasemir
- Navigate by Date:
- Prev:
Re: dataAccess V4 Ca client propertyId questions Marty Kraimer
- Next:
Record support and user-defined fields Benjamin Franksen
- Index:
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:
views Kay-Uwe Kasemir
- Next:
Re: dataAccess V4 Ca client propertyId questions Ralph Lange
- Index:
2002
2003
2004
<2005>
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
|
ANJ, 02 Feb 2012 |
·
Home
·
News
·
About
·
Base
·
Modules
·
Extensions
·
Distributions
·
Download
·
·
Search
·
EPICS V4
·
IRMIS
·
Talk
·
Bugs
·
Documents
·
Links
·
Licensing
·
|