> > So I was wondering what the rationale behind having the VAL field's
> > PP attribute FALSE on some record types is. It would seem more logical
> > always to set it TRUE (but that might break some existing code I suppose).
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > William
>
>
> I looked and the following record types do not have PP(TRUE) set for the
> VAL field.
>
> calc, calcout, event, fanout, histogram, pal, pulseCounter, pulseDelay,
> scan, and wait.
>
> It seem reasonable to set PP(TRUE) on the VAL field of all record types.
> Can anyone see a problem if we do this?
>
> Marty Kraimer
YES ! I think changing these values now would be a great disservice to
application developers ! There are likely databases that have been designed
to account for this, and if all of a sudden a record gets processed twice
instead of once, who knows ? Not only that, but this potential erratic
behavior would be VERY difficult to diagnose (even if it is described in the
"release notes" !).
I agree that the rationale for not having them all the same is questionable,
but if it's not broke .... !
Ned
- Navigate by Date:
- Prev:
burt 'features' Matthias Clausen DESY -MKS-2/KRYK-
- 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: processing on put to .VAL field Marty Kraimer
- Next:
Re: processing on put to .VAL field William Lupton
- 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
|