Re: [Pvmanager-devel] alarm

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

  On 31.08.2010 16:36, Andrew Johnson wrote:
> On Tuesday 31 August 2010 15:02:33 Ralph Lange wrote:
>> I don't like the idea of alarm conditions being hidden by the projection
>> onto the severity.
> This approach makes the individual alarms more visible, it doesn't hide them.
>

Now I understand your argumentation that the client would just print the 
strings anyway and not be interested in the actual bitset.

Hm ... I agree that we're not that far apart. ;-)

There's still the performance issue that concatenating the strings would 
always be on-the-fly = strings on the wire, while the status bitset 
would in most cases refer to an inmutable string enum = int on the wire.
Especially for a large number of simple devices (for NSLS-II we're 
talking about ~900 PS using the same controller, and ~15,000 instances 
of the same temperature sensor) the string enum sounds like the far more 
efficient option.

I agree there will be devices that need complex and maybe run-time 
changing sets of error strings, but I would think these will be few.

Is there a way to treat these special devices special, and still have 
the efficient implementation for the 98% regular devices with a fixed 
set of status strings?

~Ralph