Re: Naming bits in an mbbiDirect record

["Sukhanov, Andrei via Tech-talk" <tech-talk at aps.anl.gov>]

Why do we need separate naming for the individual bits at all?

In a Python-based PVAccess server, handling the bits is straightforward.

If the bits are used for display only, the server publishes the entire word. For OPI file generation, we use phoebusgen, and the generated code requires only 4–10 lines to add labels for the ByteMonitor.

If the bits are needed for plotting or remote access, they can be published as separate PVs.

The alarm conditions are handled at the whole-word level.

Regards,
Andrey

---

From: Tech-talk <tech-talk-bounces at aps.anl.gov> on behalf of Ralph Lange via Tech-talk <tech-talk at aps.anl.gov>
Sent: Saturday, September 5, 2026 8:48 AM
To: EPICS Tech Talk <tech-talk at aps.anl.gov>
Subject: Re: Naming bits in an mbbiDirect record

 

If I remember correctly, some years ago, there was an idea thrown around at a Codeathon to make the 'info()' structures readable across the network. That feature would allow you to add any number of string tags to any record, but without

ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerStart

This Message Is From an External Sender

This message came from outside your organization.

 

ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerEnd

If I remember correctly, some years ago, there was an idea thrown around at a Codeathon to make the 'info()' structures readable across the network.

That feature would allow you to add any number of string tags to any record, but without record-specific code, without blowing up the field list and without adding to the memory footprint of every instance.

Does anyone remember why that feature was never fully developed?

Cheers,
~Ralph