Re: Record support and user-defined fields

[Benjamin Franksen <benjamin.franksen@bessy.de>]

On Wednesday 06 July 2005 16:01, Kay-Uwe Kasemir wrote:
> Thanks for your comments, I think I got them all added
> to the user-defined-fields page.
>
> The whole point is to get the pros & cons collected,
> so that we can then decide what we need and in what order.

Yes.

> I see good reasons for both adding fields to record instances
> (easy to use, but limited functionality)
> and having building blocks for new records
> (requires more forethought but also more options).

Yes, I agree. I think both aproaches are possible and maybe we should 
have both available.

> For example, the current AI, AO, CALC, CALCOUT, SUB, DFANOUT
> records all have very much the same code for handling the
> alarms via LOLO, ..., HIHI, LLSV, ..., HHSV.
> The necessary rewrite of the database for V4
> would benefit from only having to write that once
> and then build those records by invoking the same 'analogAlarms'
> code.

Yes. And new record types would be easier to write, too. And behavior 
would automatically be more uniform & predictable. This is true 
regardless of which of the two methods is chosen.

Ben