Re: .PACT .TIME

[Andrew Johnson <anj@aps.anl.gov>]

Hi Benjamin,

On 2012-12-18 Benjamin Franksen wrote:
> On Wednesday, December 12, 2012 14:16:12 Mark Rivers wrote:
> > I don't think that PACT would really be considered "metadata".
> >
> > But this Web page explains which fields in dbCommon do post monitors
> >
> > https://wiki-ext.aps.anl.gov/epics/index.php/RRM_3-14_dbCommon
> 
> Posting monitors for PACT would be a most welcome addition. Maybe this
> could be added in 3.15?

That would require changes to every record type's process() routine [which I 
couldn't do for record types not in Base], and would hit performance.  Every 
call to db_post_event() requires it to search the record's list of CA clients, 
comparing the posted address with that of the subscribed field for every 
subscriber, and for PACT there would be two calls since it changes twice per 
process.

It /might/ be possible to make the .TIME field accessible over CA and post 
monitors on it from within recGblGetTimeStamp(), but I haven't looked at the 
code changes necessary to implement that.  The native type of the TIME field 
would probably become ULONG[2] but I'd like to make it accessible as a string 
as well, and doing all that might need some deep changes so no promises.

- Andrew
-- 
There is no such thing as a free lunch.  When invited for lunch,
it is best to check if you are there to eat, or to be eaten.
-- Clive Robinson