Re: Naming conventions for devices and Epics records (more ...)

[Maren Purves <m.purves@jach.hawaii.edu>]

Eric,

I do find this question relevant, and we name these records just like
you suggest. I wouldn't be too concerned whether an operator who may
at some point see records like that understands what e.g. a calcout
is, you can documents what the record means when the time comes.

HTH,

Maren

On Thu, 23 Nov 2006, Lecorche Eric wrote:

> To be clearer, for example, if I consider the so-called device "LEB1-G-Q12" 
> (Quad 12 of LEBT 1 to guide the beam), I could therefore define 
> "LEB1-G-Q12:Current" or "LEB1-G-Q12:Status." Let us imagine that to implement 
> the device I must introduce internal records (calc, fanout ...) : is it a 
> good approach to name them "LEB1-G-Q12:IntCalc1", 
> LEB1-G-Q12:IntCalc2","LEB1-G-Q12:IntFanout1" ("Int" for "Internal record") ? 
> And how can I solve the case when some internal record belong to the 
> processing chains of two different devices ? Also, I am aware that if later 
> my "internal record" has to be seen by the operator either its name becomes 
> meaningless or I have to rename the record (without forgetting "internal" 
> clients such as the sequencer for example ...).