P
Hi all,
In developing my modbus_tcp module I have started to ponder on the method of telling the linuxplc that communications has failed or that the module has stopped and possibly a whole miriad of information about the module.
My first thought was to create generic names for my modules diagnostics and then appending them into the linuxplc.conf file.
Another Idea is to have another smm for system diagnostics. Maybe?
Then I had another idea that requires some thought. Maybe the points in the smm should auto address. Then each module could have their own key words that pass diagnostic info into the smm. Module developers can then provide a conf file that would only need including. The conf file would *not* need editing at all.
The new format for linuxplc.conf would be somthing like this.
<snip>
[SMM]
point my_input "my favorite input" my_module type bool
point my_output "my flashy output" your_module type bool
[my_module]
*include my_module.conf
my_point my_input 192.168.0.22 1 182 din 0
my_point my_output 192.168.0.23 1 12 dout 0
blah blah blah...........................
</snip>
inside the modules conf file my_module.conf the following tags would be added
<snip>
[SMM]
point my_module_run_status "status of this module" my_module type int
point my_module_error_val "error code for this module" my_module type int
blah blah blah.........................
</snip>
One disadvantage to some people is that the same point can not have more than one name but in my book that keeps each point's documentation unique like it should be. ( I'll save this debate for another day. )
Just another subject to throw on the table.
I hope this dosn't repeat too much old discussion but we do need to do somthing.
Phil
_______________________________________________
LinuxPLC mailing list
[email protected]
http://linuxplc.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxplc
In developing my modbus_tcp module I have started to ponder on the method of telling the linuxplc that communications has failed or that the module has stopped and possibly a whole miriad of information about the module.
My first thought was to create generic names for my modules diagnostics and then appending them into the linuxplc.conf file.
Another Idea is to have another smm for system diagnostics. Maybe?
Then I had another idea that requires some thought. Maybe the points in the smm should auto address. Then each module could have their own key words that pass diagnostic info into the smm. Module developers can then provide a conf file that would only need including. The conf file would *not* need editing at all.
The new format for linuxplc.conf would be somthing like this.
<snip>
[SMM]
point my_input "my favorite input" my_module type bool
point my_output "my flashy output" your_module type bool
[my_module]
*include my_module.conf
my_point my_input 192.168.0.22 1 182 din 0
my_point my_output 192.168.0.23 1 12 dout 0
blah blah blah...........................
</snip>
inside the modules conf file my_module.conf the following tags would be added
<snip>
[SMM]
point my_module_run_status "status of this module" my_module type int
point my_module_error_val "error code for this module" my_module type int
blah blah blah.........................
</snip>
One disadvantage to some people is that the same point can not have more than one name but in my book that keeps each point's documentation unique like it should be. ( I'll save this debate for another day. )
Just another subject to throw on the table.
I hope this dosn't repeat too much old discussion but we do need to do somthing.
Phil
_______________________________________________
LinuxPLC mailing list
[email protected]
http://linuxplc.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxplc