Re: Naming bits in an mbbiDirect record

[Rolf Keitel via Tech-talk <tech-talk at aps.anl.gov>]

Title: signature text

IMHO, adding descriptive fields for he B... bits in the mbbiDirect records and use them as PVs would make it more difficult to maintain a consistent naming convention.

We use throughout  something like <device>:<signal> and - where required - use bi records linked to the .B..  bits to establish the <signal> part.  I wouldn't want to see the introduction of  <device>.<signal>  alternatives.

- rolf -

On 2026-09-07 7:48 a.m., Ralph Lange via Tech-talk wrote:

We're on the same page, good!

Back to the labeling topic.

I have nothing against labels, in fact: I like them, because they make things clearer.

However, I really prefer the "remote access to info() fields" idea, as it doesn't add per-instance memory footprint unless used and it provides a single solution, valid for all records types (including locally developed ones and all those to come).

Once we add labels to mbbiDirect, I can immediately see them in the request pipeline for mbboDirect (labeling command bits), calc (describing the inputs), scalc (same), seq (labeling the steps), select (labeling the inputs), etc etc.

With info() fields remotely accessible, that would all be possible from day one.

Cheers,
~Ralph

--
Rolf Keitel, Ph.D.(he/him, er/ihm, il/lui, él/él, lui/lui, 彼/彼)
Researcher Emeritus
e-mail: rolf at triumf.ca
------ Home ------
4158 West 13th Ave
Vancouver, BC, V6R 2T6
604 228 0594
------ Office: ------
604 222 7453
TRIUMF Canada’s particle accelerator centre
4004 Wesbrook Mall Vancouver, BC, V6T 2A3
www.triumf.ca | Twitter | Facebook | Instagram

TRIUMF is located on the traditional, ancestral, and unceded territory of the xʷməθkʷəy̓əm (Musqueam) people,
who for millennia have passed on their culture, history, and traditions from one generation to the next on this site.