D
> From: Curt Wuollet [mailto:[email protected]]
> Subject: Re: LinuxPLC: Linux PLC: ISA Article and a Charter of sorts(long)
>
> to editorialize. The ControlX thing was (I hope) a joke. Any comments on Fred's paper? I don't see a need for the ring buffering, but the
rest seems like a good way to be as flexible as possible. <
Seems reasonable and straightforward. The only things that worry me a bit are the Linux enforced limit on maximum shared memory size and some vague
questions about how well it would work with multiple sharing processes. The later is really about usage conventions, not the general idea. For an example of why: consider a vision system (written in C++) that wants to communicate tightly with a controller -- say for automatic inspection. We've had customers with requirements like that.
Dan Pierson
_______________________________________________
LinuxPLC mailing list
[email protected]
http://linuxplc.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxplc
> Subject: Re: LinuxPLC: Linux PLC: ISA Article and a Charter of sorts(long)
>
> to editorialize. The ControlX thing was (I hope) a joke. Any comments on Fred's paper? I don't see a need for the ring buffering, but the
rest seems like a good way to be as flexible as possible. <
Seems reasonable and straightforward. The only things that worry me a bit are the Linux enforced limit on maximum shared memory size and some vague
questions about how well it would work with multiple sharing processes. The later is really about usage conventions, not the general idea. For an example of why: consider a vision system (written in C++) that wants to communicate tightly with a controller -- say for automatic inspection. We've had customers with requirements like that.
Dan Pierson
_______________________________________________
LinuxPLC mailing list
[email protected]
http://linuxplc.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxplc