Experimental Physics and Industrial Control System
Eric,
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 ...).
- References:
- Naming conventions for devices and Epics records (more ...) Lecorche Eric
- Navigate by Date:
- Prev:
Re: Ethernet electrical isolation Eric Norum
- Next:
Re: Naming conventions for devices and Epics records (more ...) Benjamin Franksen
- 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:
Naming conventions for devices and Epics records (more ...) Lecorche Eric
- Next:
Re: Naming conventions for devices and Epics records (more ...) Benjamin Franksen
- 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