Experimental Physics and
| |||||||||||||||||
|
I do find this question relevant, and we name these records just like you suggest. I wouldn't be too concerned whether an operator who may at some point see records like that understands what e.g. a calcout is, you can documents what the record means when the time comes. HTH, Maren On Thu, 23 Nov 2006, Lecorche Eric wrote: 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 ...).
| ||||||||||||||||
ANJ, 02 Sep 2010 |
·
Home
·
News
·
About
·
Base
·
Modules
·
Extensions
·
Distributions
·
Download
·
· Search · EPICS V4 · IRMIS · Talk · Bugs · Documents · Links · Licensing · |