> 3. I don't know that the maintainers of EPICS fully endorse CAJ.
> I think it would be great if they did, but there may be some feeling
> that the CA protocol should only be implemented as provided in EPICS
> base, and any other language support should be implemented with
> bindings into the native CA library rather than a separate
> implementing of the CA protocol in that other language.
It's a very good experience from a perspective of protocol robustness to
have multiple implementations. In general mixing multiple implementations on
the same network is fine. After we get through an initial deployment period
I am going to predict that our biggest concern might be that in large
systems we have to be careful about congestion feedback, and that this might
be slightly harder to debug, but probably not unmanageable either. Its
managements call whether its cost effective to maintain more than one
version or not, but we have learned that healthy competition, and an
opportunity for new ideas, seem to make up for any loss of productivity due
to redundant efforts within open source developments.
PS: Have a look at Mantis 268, which might also apply to R3.13 IOCs, if you
deploy CAJ on your EPICS network.
Jeff
- References:
- JCA2 vs CAJ? GaryCarr
- Re: JCA2 vs CAJ? J. Lewis Muir
- Navigate by Date:
- Prev:
Re: JCA2 vs CAJ? Matthias Clausen
- Next:
JCA2 vs CAJ GaryCarr
- 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: JCA2 vs CAJ? Matthias Clausen
- Next:
JCA2 vs CAJ GaryCarr
- 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
|