Let me summarize the situation:
There are at least two ways to allow CA clients to retrieve the record
type and a version identifier for a record type/record support
combination:
1) Add two new fields RTYP and VERS
2) Add two new DBR_types
Here are arguments for/against each
New fields RTYP and VERS
Argument for:
Existing CA clients automatically have access to new info.
Arguments against:
1) Each record instance will use extra storage for new fields.
2) Not elegent, i.e. info is associated with record instances that
belongs to record type.
3) A CA client that wants to provide a builtin capability to get record
type/version must know how to strip field name from channel name and
then add .RTYP or .VERS
New DBR_types: Arguments for/against are the reverse of those for new
fields.
I am starting to think that allowing existing CA clients to work without
change is more important than the other arguments.
For Channel Access Version 4 and database Access version 4 we should
solve these problems in a much nicer way but maybe for version 3 adding
new fields is best.
Marty Kraimer
- Replies:
- Re: EPICS r3.13 field VERS and RTYP Chip WATSON
- References:
- Re: EPICS r3.13 field VERS Marty Kraimer
- Navigate by Date:
- Prev:
Re: proposed RTYP field Marty Kraimer
- Next:
Re: EPICS r3.13 field VERS Marty Kraimer
- Index:
1994
1995
1996
1997
<1998>
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
- Navigate by Thread:
- Prev:
Re: EPICS r3.13 field VERS Marty Kraimer
- Next:
Re: EPICS r3.13 field VERS and RTYP Chip WATSON
- Index:
1994
1995
1996
1997
<1998>
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
|