Andrew,
Does that mean the value transmitted via a caput() action is
discarded if the target record had PACT true due to being
in its "read" mode, for example, caused to process by a FLNK from
another record?
- Peregrine
On Fri, 9 Apr 2004, Andrew Johnson wrote:
> The talk of how to implement bidirectional I/O through existing record
> types still has a fundamental problem that *cannot* be solved using a
> single VAL field no matter how you implement it - you're going to throw
> away information somewhere if a new output demand occurs at about the same
> time as a new value comes back from the device. You cannot simultaneously
> hold both a record's last output demand and the value read back from the
> device, unless this record provides the only possible way to change that
> output. There is no substitute for having two different places to store
> the last demand and the readback information.
>
--
Peregrine M. McGehee Department of Astronomy
New Mexico State University, Las Cruces, New Mexico
- References:
- Bidirectional device support Andrew Johnson
- Navigate by Date:
- Prev:
Bidirectional device support Andrew Johnson
- Next:
Re: EPICS Meeting Noboru Yamamoto
- 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:
Bidirectional device support Andrew Johnson
- Next:
Re: Record processing knowledge of dbAccess context 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
|