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: Link arrays / syntax |
From: | Marty Kraimer <[email protected]> |
To: | EPICS Core Talk <[email protected]> |
Date: | Thu, 20 Oct 2005 07:24:41 -0500 |
Andrew Johnson wrote:
Tim Mooney wrote:I just wonder how an end user is going to specify that a link should wait or block. Right now, I have a custom seq record that allows the user to specify wait/nowait for each output link, but of course this requires an extra field associated with each link.Tim's last point is IMHO an important one which I personally think might be part of a better solution to this whole issue of sequencing and synchronization of parallel links. Where we want to give users control over the seq/sync of sets of links there needs to be information supplied to configure the seq/sync process, but this information is not usually meaningful where individual links are used.It really only seems to make sense for this level of control to be provided for the arrays of inputs to the sub and calc records and for the sequence record, and there we might want to provide additional and more complex sequencing between the input and output links. It should become obvious from that particular example that this sequencing and synchronization between links is really nothing to do with the link type at all, so it shouldn't be specified through the link configuration.- Andrew
Are you saying that we should not implement block, process, and wait semantics as part of a link definition?
I am under the impression that the general concensus that it is a good idea and we were deciding semantics.
Am I wrong? Marty