Experimental Physics and Industrial Control System
|
I don’t work for BESSY, but I am a LabVIEW developer as well as too many other languages by now, and I would choose CALab over the
native implementations in LabVIEW. I hadn’t noticed a marked improvement in the EPICS implementations, but generally we don’t use it where I work.
If we are writing in LabVIEW and talking to something in EPICS, we use CALab. As is often the case it depends on the overall system
what the best solution is, but for the problem description you gave, I’d go with CALab myself.
Regards,
Kathryn
From: Tech-talk <tech-talk-bounces at aps.anl.gov>
On Behalf Of Ralph Lange via Tech-talk
Sent: 27 May 2020 08:36
To: EPICS Tech Talk <tech-talk at aps.anl.gov>
Subject: Re: SoftIOC and Labview
My 2cts - your mileage may vary:
The NI implementations of CA (client and server) were indeed getting better over time, but they started at a very low level of compatibility.
Their newest versions are pretty much working (at least for scalars), but - especially for their CA server - you are always in for some surprises, and your clients might need special configuration when talking to an NI Channel Access server.
I can just underline what Gabriel wrote: In my experience (which is obviously biased as I was working at BESSY for a long time), CALab is the most reliable, robust and stable CA client for LabVIEW.
(Doesn't just look better - it works better, too!)
This email and any attachments are intended solely for the use of the named recipients. If you are not the intended recipient you must not use, disclose, copy or distribute this email or any of its attachments and should notify the sender immediately and delete this email from your system. UK Research and Innovation (UKRI) has taken every reasonable precaution to minimise risk of this email or any attachments containing viruses or malware but the recipient should carry out its own virus and malware checks before opening the attachments. UKRI does not accept any liability for any losses or damages which the recipient may sustain due to presence of any viruses. Opinions, conclusions or other information in this message and attachments that are not related directly to UKRI business are solely those of the author and do not represent the views of UKRI.
|
- References:
- SoftIOC and Labview Mostafa, Jalal (IPE) via Tech-talk
- Re: SoftIOC and Labview Paul Sichta via Tech-talk
- Re: SoftIOC and Labview Mostafa, Jalal (IPE) via Tech-talk
- Re: SoftIOC and Labview Paul Sichta via Tech-talk
- Re: SoftIOC and Labview Gabriel Fedel via Tech-talk
- Re: SoftIOC and Labview Ralph Lange via Tech-talk
- Navigate by Date:
- Prev:
Re: SoftIOC and Labview Ralph Lange via Tech-talk
- Next:
Strange problem with areaDetector driver Jörn Dreyer via Tech-talk
- 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: SoftIOC and Labview Ralph Lange via Tech-talk
- Next:
Re: SoftIOC and Labview Paul Sichta via Tech-talk
- 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
|
ANJ, 27 May 2020 |
·
Home
·
News
·
About
·
Base
·
Modules
·
Extensions
·
Distributions
·
Download
·
·
Search
·
EPICS V4
·
IRMIS
·
Talk
·
Bugs
·
Documents
·
Links
·
Licensing
·
|