From: Andrey R. <an...@eq...> - 2002-10-22 14:02:29
|
> I have just taken a look into the code, and now I see your point. I'll > probably just make it into a global variable visible only within io.c <A Big Fat Warning Sign and Honk On> If the future direction to follow is multithreading, care should be taken to synchronize the access from different threads. <The Big Fat Warning Sign and Honk Burned Out> > Anyway, I have another question... > > Until now, all the IO modules were configured with a map in the cofig > file: > map in ioaddr1 plcpt1 [] > map out ioaddr8 plcpt8 [] > > But for a slave module, the in/out no longer makes sense, or does it? > In other words, should we still diferentiate between in/out, or should > we simply have a map without the in/out? > > If we do keep the in/out, what meanings should we apply to each, in the > case of a slave IO module? The in/out words can work as access control. There is read/write access available in the point definitions but it may be not sufficient. Only explicitly mapped points should be accessible to modbus masters and exception messages and "yell" log entries should be produced otherwise. I see an interesting fact though: the "in" word for a master module means "out" for a slave. Won't the user be confused while configuring matplc? Andrey |