Experimental Physics and
| |||||||||||||||
|
On Mon, 30 Mar 2020 at 06:08, Johnson, Andrew N. via Core-talk <core-talk at aps.anl.gov> wrote:
The longer I think about it, the more I think that "put filters" should indeed be something completely separate. Maybe the put variant should not be called "filter" in the first place, but... "operator"? "manipulator"? The data is different. (Mostly no meta data, no timestamp, no "from the record" type.) The operation is different (as seen in the array case). There are no pre-queue / post-queue considerations. Many very reasonable filters have no equivalent put-thing. Filters and put-things could share configuration and instantiation mechanism, maybe in a separate namespace - to e.g. allow "arr" and the "[]" to point to the filter and the put-thing. Limitations and restrictions could easily apply to one direction only. (Chained array filters are ok, chained array put-things are not.) I think such an approach could simplify the implementation. Cheers, ~Ralph
| ||||||||||||||
ANJ, 02 Apr 2020 |
·
Home
·
News
·
About
·
Base
·
Modules
·
Extensions
·
Distributions
·
Download
·
· Search · EPICS V4 · IRMIS · Talk · Bugs · Documents · Links · Licensing · |