Re: Refactoring / renaming Channel -> Pv

[White, G. <gr...@sl...>]

I thought our plan was to refactor names in source and documentation so as
not to use words containing "channel" when referring to a pv rather than to a
channel. pvAccess will [continue to] connect to pvs [through a channel]. If that's so,
then Marty would be happy, right?

The Diamond meeting 2nd day minutes say only :
  Discussion about meaning of channel, process variable, etc.
  AI:  BD will start glossary.   [<-- I'd love this! ]
  What to do about code and existing documentation? Future discussion.

*Ralph* and *Matej*, can you make a short list of the refactors you have in mind,
actually name-for-changed-name.
Doesn't have to be the full list, just something concrete, so
we can see the difference of what you're talking with respect to "channel" as
opposed to Channel Access, and interop of the pvAccess module (including its
various providers) with base IOCs and pvIOCs.

Cheers
Greg

[1] https://docs.google.com/document/d/1zd5cyeLAy3Ud0wlFQsKZAvGzqCBNPB901nMmH66P_Dc/pub

On Nov 21, 2013, at 1:23 PM, Marty Kraimer <mrk...@co...<mailto:mrk...@co...>> wrote:

On 11/21/2013 05:42 AM, Ralph Lange wrote:
On 20.11.2013 20:29, Marty Kraimer wrote:
On 11/20/2013 11:04 AM, Ralph Lange wrote:
If I remember correctly,

we decided to bite the bullet and rename/refactor our modules to replace
the term "channel" with "pv", so that pvAccess connects to pvs, and the
pvAccess server implements a PvProvider to give pvAccess an interface to
pvData structures, etc.

I still see a lot of "Channel" inside pvAccess.
Let me propose a less disruptive change.
[...]
Marty,

Let me remind you that we have comprehensively discussed this issue, and
had come to a conclusion.

I do remember discussing this issue at more than one meeting.
I thought that we did agree that "channel access" should only be used
when referring to the network support that comes with iocCore.
This [thus] we should NOT use "channel access" when talking about pvAccess.

That is quite different than saying that we should not use "channel".

Again channel is a name widely used for many different purposes.
No system should claim that it has exclusive use of this name.

Marty
Unless you have discovered new facts that are likely to change the
result, I would prefer not to repeat the argument.

Cheers,
~Ralph


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shape the Mobile Experience: Free Subscription
Software experts and developers: Be at the forefront of tech innovation.
Intel(R) Software Adrenaline delivers strategic insight and game-changing
conversations that shape the rapidly evolving mobile landscape. Sign up now.
http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=63431311&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk



------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shape the Mobile Experience: Free Subscription
Software experts and developers: Be at the forefront of tech innovation.
Intel(R) Software Adrenaline delivers strategic insight and game-changing
conversations that shape the rapidly evolving mobile landscape. Sign up now.
http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=63431311&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk