On 09/28/2011 06:24 AM, Greg White wrote:
Hi Matej,

I read your pvAccess spec with a view to review for publication. I started making annotations on paper, so I switched to your word do and have put them directly in the doc. 

Mostly it's a very readable spec. Please check out my comments. It does need some tightening up though doesn't it. I've inserted text where I was pretty sure I knew what a good edit would be, and I used MS comments to make remarks. A number of the messages' structures are defined but not described. Also, as a general comment, there is very little mention of roles. The reader is left to assume roles in pvData and pvIOC, but they're not made explicit.
Two thoughts.

Perhaps the protocol document should expand the Overview to describe pvData?
It could use the pvData Meta Language as a starting point but only as a starting point.

Is it necessary to mention pvIOC in protocol document?

Marty
 I'd be happy to edit the document as an editor. 


Cheers
Greg
 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------ All the data continuously generated in your IT infrastructure contains a definitive record of customers, application performance, security threats, fraudulent activity and more. Splunk takes this data and makes sense of it. Business sense. IT sense. Common sense. http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-d2dcopy1