Experimental Physics and Industrial Control System
Hi,
First many thanks to the various people who took some time to answer the
previous thread concerning this topic so providing me very useful
sources of information.
I started reading them and, perhaps I am wrong, but it seems to me that
there is more information for devices or signals naming than for records
naming by themselves : according to our experience at Ganil and the
different papers I gathered I suppose that I can try now to define the
"best as possible" naming convention both for the devices and the
hardware signals. But what else for what I would call "internal Epics
records" which are never seen from the operators : did you try to
specify naming conventions for these internal records or is it a non
sense question ?
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 ...).
Are these questions relevant or not ?
Thanks again for your opinion !
Eric
begin:vcard
fn;quoted-printable:Eric L=C3=A9corch=C3=A9
n;quoted-printable:L=C3=A9corch=C3=A9;Eric
org:Ganil;Groupe Informatique Machine
adr:;;BP 55027;Caen;;14076;France
email;internet:[email protected]
title:DBA / resp. GMAO / CC Ganil
tel;work:02 31 45 47 35
tel;fax:02 31 45 47 28
url:http://www.ganil.fr
version:2.1
end:vcard
- Replies:
- Re: Naming conventions for devices and Epics records (more ...) Maren Purves
- Re: Naming conventions for devices and Epics records (more ...) Benjamin Franksen
- Navigate by Date:
- Prev:
RE: Motion control failure at APS - Not a Problem for Hytec 8601 / 8909 Darrell Nineham
- Next:
Ethernet electrical isolation Touchard Dominique
- 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: Motion control failure at APS - Not a Problem for Hytec 8601 / 8909 Darrell Nineham
- Next:
Re: Naming conventions for devices and Epics records (more ...) Maren Purves
- 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