2002 2003 2004 <2005> 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 | Index | 2002 2003 2004 <2005> 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 |
<== Date ==> | <== Thread ==> |
---|
Subject: | Re: Data Access Name Clash |
From: | Ralph Lange <[email protected]> |
To: | [email protected] |
Date: | Tue, 13 Sep 2005 10:22:18 +0200 |
Kay-Uwe Kasemir wrote:
On Sep 9, 2005, at 11:51, Marty Kraimer wrote:... "CS Office Data Access Layer" ...Although part of the name is "Data Access", this proposal is a layer that will interface to EPICS (V3 and V4), TINE, TANGO, ACD, and DOOOCS and is not the same as dataAccess.Right, it's not the same, but since it's only in its beginnings, there's a good chance that the V4 method of describing data turns into the "CS office" API for describing data.
"Data Access" is a term widely used within a number of places and in a number of protocols. (So at least it's not a bad name, for sure.) Andrew was pointing this out a few months ago and suggested that we talk about "EPICS Data Access" to have a unique name.
Now we actually do have a name clash, as "EPICS Data Access" is obviously not the same as "EPICS Office Data Access". I have no idea if that was intentional or by mistake, and I am not too happy with the situation - as long as we can choose names we really should avoid introducing ambiguities within our own stuff.
[Frankly, I also don't like the name "EPICS Office" too much, either. It doesn't really fit the case and is misleading as well in its primary as in its connotative meanings. Sounds too much Microsoftish - but that's probably an issue of personal taste. Never mind.]
Ralph