Re: swtshellJava and portDriverJava Reference Documentation off literature.html

[Ralph L. <Ral...@gm...>]

Hi,

I never said I am against introducing that kind of formality. I see the
benefits.

I was just saying that pvaSrv is an singleton implementation of a
service, and I do not see the immediate benefit of making a spec for
such a singular thing a normative document.

If - after reading the doc - calling it "Editor's Draft" is all that is
required at the moment, I am happy to do so.

~Ralph


On Wed Mar 27 2013 14:27:42 GMT+0100 (CET), Dalesio, Leo
<da...@bn...> wrote:
> This work toward more formality has some serious benefits in this architecture. In V3, we have a very small client interface that was very easy to understand and people were easily able to master that and start writing clients. The interface to the drivers, was a mess. Marty did a lot of reword to fix that and then people were more able to add drivers. But the formality was never there and the barrier to entry was higher. 
> In V4, we are inviting people to write a large number of services. We have put in mechanisms to do some powerful things for integrating relational databases, data archives, real time data, model services, etc.... This is a pretty huge difference and the documentation and the formality to describe these things will be very useful for the eventual explosion of service developers. Greg's experience in this area comes from his work in such a development. It seems an important and valuable direction for us to take on V4.
> Bob
>
> ________________________________________
> From: White, Greg [gr...@sl...]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2013 9:14 AM
> To: Ralph Lange
> Cc: EPICS V4 Developers
> Subject: Re: swtshellJava and portDriverJava Reference Documentation off        literature.html
>
> Hi Ralph, just wanted to reply to this part of you mail - by the "normative processes" I just
> meant the process by which we as a working group develop a standard, as outlined in the
> "EPICS Version 4 Process" doc. That doc is just editors draft, so you might say the process
> itself hasn't been finalized, but that's what I'm getting at. And as you alluded to, it's
> questionable whether pvaSrv should be a standard at this point, so maybe it's not pertinent
> to the normative process at all.
>
> Just to say; I understand that EPICS doesn't normally proceed in a such a formalized way. I'm
> aware both that trying to make EPICS V4 do things this way leads to "howls of derisive
> laughter Bruce", and consequently aware also of the possibility of diluting my
> effectiveness in chairing the group. Still, this process is what I think will work for the long
> term to increase the likelyhood of the success of EPICS V4. It tries to be the framework that
> links objectives, activities, AIs etc, to strategy, and vice versa.
>
> Cheers
> Greg
>
> [1] http://epics-pvdata.sourceforge.net/epicsv4process.html#normative_document_development_and_publication_process
>
> On Mar 26, 2013, at 6:51 PM, Ralph Lange <Ral...@gm...> wrote:
>
>> Review is always good. I do not see the advantage of undergoing the normative process, though. (Nor do I understand what this process exactly is.)
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Own the Future-Intel&reg; Level Up Game Demo Contest 2013
> Rise to greatness in Intel's independent game demo contest.
> Compete for recognition, cash, and the chance to get your game
> on Steam. $5K grand prize plus 10 genre and skill prizes.
> Submit your demo by 6/6/13. http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel_levelupd2d