Ah, yes, I agree that "virtualizing" the TIME field directly is even
better.
I am not convinced of the filter solution if it implies yet another ad-
hoc addition to channel name parsing to support `caget xx.TIME`. I
understand the temptation but I recommend against it. There is no easy
way to make such ad-hoc syntax extensions in a modular way and the more
we add the harder it gets to make the next change. This approach clearly
doesn't scale in the long run. I find it cleaner to add a special
processing phase for dbCommon fields. Once this is implemented it can
easily be re-used for other extensions.
Also, converting timestamps to human readable (or any other) formats is
clearly a task that clients are better prepared to do; IMO we should not
bother the server with that.
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of EPICS
Core Developers, which is subscribed to EPICS Base.
Matching subscriptions: epics-core-list-subscription
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1182091
Title:
Make TIME field directly accessible
Status in EPICS Base:
Triaged
Bug description:
Users often request the ability to access the TIME field directly.
It could be provided as an array of 2 32-bit values, possibly with a specific string in ISO-8601 form say.
To manage notifications about this bug go to:
https://bugs.launchpad.net/epics-base/+bug/1182091/+subscriptions
- Navigate by Date:
- Prev:
[Bug 1182091] Re: Make TIME field directly accessible Jure Varlec via Core-talk
- Next:
[Bug 1182091] Re: Make TIME field directly accessible Freddie Akeroyd via Core-talk
- Index:
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
<2021>
2022
2023
2024
2025
- Navigate by Thread:
- Prev:
[Bug 1182091] Re: Make TIME field directly accessible Jure Varlec via Core-talk
- Next:
[Bug 1182091] Re: Make TIME field directly accessible Freddie Akeroyd via Core-talk
- Index:
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
<2021>
2022
2023
2024
2025
|