Re: Local CA out links broken during PINI

[Ralph Lange <Ralph.Lange@bessy.de>]

Good points.

I didn't think about external CA links, though.
As nowadays using CA/CP links is the only way to link records without 
forcing them into the same lock set, it's a pity that this doesn't work 
for PINI processing.

Idea: Why not introduce an additional PINI sweep, and change the PINI 
field to be a three-option choice?
"NO", "YES", "UP": NO and YES yield the classical behaviour, while "UP" 
puts the record into the second PINI phase, that runs *after* the CA 
client and server are started (I.e., when the IOC is UP).
Should be compatible, shouldn't break existing stuff, allows CA/CP in 
PINI processing.

For the Redundant IOC , it has the interesting side effect that you can 
select if the record should be processed at boot time, or after the IOC 
has become active.
(If the IOC switches back and forth between active and inactive, would 
UP records be processed whenever it gets active? Do we need to 
distinguish between "Once UP" and "Whenever UP"?)

Ralph


On 18.02.2009 16:59 Andrew Johnson wrote:
> On Wednesday 18 February 2009 06:56:57 Ralph Lange wrote:
>   
> > This sounds like a fix could be feasible and/or an issue on Andrew's
> > list, doesn't it?
> >     
>
> Unfortunately I just realized that doing so would break the Redundant IOC 
> interface.  Those xxxRun() calls are in iocRun() whereas the initialProcess() 
> call is in iocBuild(), so in a redundant IOC the PINI processing happens at 
> start-up but the CA links don't get connected until the redundancy executive 
> says "go" (which could be weeks or even months later).  I'm not sure if the 
> initialProcess() call could/should be moved, but doing so would change the 
> meaning of some of our initHooks.
>
> The other thing that worries me is that I think the act of connecting up the 
> CA links probably also enables any CP or CPP input links to start processing, 
> so it's possible that they could pre-empt the PINI processing (especially if 
> they're pointing at an external IOC which is already running).
>
> - Andrew
>