Hi all,

I managed to have a look at the Modbus code tonight and I fixed one little thing but discovered that io_status_pt no longer exists in the io library. Do we not wish to monitor io conditions any more or have we decided to do this some other way. Do you want me to modify the Modbus code or the io library.

If I remember correctly, it was jiri who helped develop the io_status_pt and it worked a treat. When a remote rack failed any io associated with that rack would bring on the io_status_pt to indicate the failure. The future was to bring status points like analog hi-low alarms, fuse blown and all sorts of other wonderful things. At least that was one goal.

Are we intending to re-develop this library or take the aproach of creating these diagnostics as normal points that somehow get configured in by the end user.

I dont mind taking a step back so long as the next step is in a better direction -->

I haven't had a chance to look through much of the new library changes so just kindly point me in the right direction if all this has already been delt with.

--

Regards

Philip Costigan


_______________________________________________
LinuxPLC mailing list
[email protected]
http://linuxplc.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxplc

 

Philip Costigan wrote:
> I managed to have a look at the Modbus code tonight and I fixed one
> little thing but discovered that io_status_pt no longer exists in the io
> library. Do we not wish to monitor io conditions any more or have we
> decided to do this some other way.
> Do you want me to modify the Modbus code or the io library.

It disappeared when Mario wrote the generic I/O library. As he wrote at the time, "Interim solution would be to copy that function to the modbus module code."

I guess for the time being grab it from the Attic (or wherever it's got to)and put it into the Modbus code.

> The future was to bring status points like analog hi-low alarms, fuse
> blown and all sorts of other wonderful things. At least that was one
> goal.

Yes, this is probably still a good idea - not sure where it's got to, whether it'll be a part of the I/O library or separate.


Jiri
--
Jiri Baum <[email protected]>
"In my opinion, the GPL is optimized to build a strong software community at the expense of a strong commercial software business model."
--Craig Mundie, Senior VP, Microsoft; 17 May 2001

_______________________________________________
LinuxPLC mailing list
Li[email protected]
http://linuxplc.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxplc

 

> I guess for the time being grab it from the Attic (or wherever it's got to)
> and put it into the Modbus code.
>

Where did it get to? There dosn't seem to be an attic for the cvs any more.

--

Regards

Philip Costigan

_______________________________________________
LinuxPLC mailing list
[email protected]
http://linuxplc.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxplc

 

Philip Costigan:
> Where did it get to? There dosn't seem to be an attic for the cvs any
> more.

Ah, it's the same filenames. You need io.h version 1.2 and io.c 1.3

http://www.linuxplc.org/cgi-bin/viewcvs.cgi/~checkout~/lib/io/io.h?rev=1.2
http://www.linuxplc.org/cgi-bin/viewcvs.cgi/~checkout~/lib/io/io.c?rev=1.3

Jiri
--
Jiri Baum <[email protected]>
"In my opinion, the GPL is optimized to build a strong software community at the expense of a strong commercial software business model."
--Craig Mundie, Senior VP, Microsoft; 17 May 2001

_______________________________________________
LinuxPLC mailing list
[email protected]
http://linuxplc.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxplc

 

Can we decide what we want to do? I would like it to be just put strait back in the i/o library but there seems to be reason not to put it there ( I think ). Is there?

--

Regards

Philip Costigan


_______________________________________________
LinuxPLC mailing list
[email protected]
http://linuxplc.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxplc

 

Hi Philip, welcome back!

> I managed to have a look at the Modbus code tonight and I fixed one little
> thing but discovered that io_status_pt no longer exists in the io library.
> Do we not wish to monitor io conditions any more or have we decided to do
> this some other way.
> Do you want me to modify the Modbus code or the io library.

As I said in a previous email, I wrote a generic io library. I got bored writing the same functionality for the second time when I started
on my second IO module (1- prallel port, 2- the cif card), so I decided to make it a library.

The generic io library is an almost fully functional io module, with only the hardware specific access and configuration functions missing. To generate a new io module you merely have to implement the functions declared in io_hw.h Having common code also helps in keeping the configuration syntax of the linuxplc.conf file consistent throughout every io module.

I needed the filenames io.h and io.c to insert the above generic io library, so the io_status_pt() function kind of disapeared. To tell you
the truth I've just been going through that function again and convinced myself that it makes sense to have it in the generic io library. I'll
put it back tomorrow at the latest...

Sorry...


> If I remember correctly, it was jiri who helped develop the io_status_pt and
> it worked a treat. When a remote rack failed any io associated with that rack
> would bring on the io_status_pt to indicate the failure.

I agree so far.

> The future was to
> bring status points like analog hi-low alarms, fuse blown and all sorts of
> other wonderful things. At least that was one goal.

Handling of analog values will be added to the generic io library later on, so we can have consistent analog value processing (scaling,
level shifting, etc...) throughout every io module.

> Are we intending to re-develop this library or take the aproach of creating
> these diagnostics as normal points that somehow get configured in by the end
> user.

They still are normal points that get configured by the end user, are they not? Sorry, you got me confused here...

> I dont mind taking a step back so long as the next step is in a better
> direction -->
>
> I haven't had a chance to look through much of the new library changes so
> just kindly point me in the right direction if all this has already been delt
> with.

Philip, It would be nice if you could bring the modbus modules into the framework of the generic io library. What do you think?

Cheers,

Mario.

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mario J. R. de Sousa
[email protected]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

The box said it requires Windows 95 or better, so I installed Linux

_______________________________________________
LinuxPLC mailing list
[email protected]
http://linuxplc.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxplc

 

On Tue, 29 May 2001 00:08, Mario wrote:
>
> The generic io library is an almost fully functional io module, with
> only the hardware specific access and configuration functions missing.
> To generate a new io module you merely have to implement the functions
> declared in io_hw.h Having common code also helps in keeping the
> configuration syntax of the linuxplc.conf file consistent throughout
> every io module.

Excellent

> I needed the filenames io.h and io.c to insert the above generic io
> library, so the io_status_pt() function kind of disappeared. To tell you
> the truth I've just been going through that function again and convinced
> myself that it makes sense to have it in the generic io library. I'll
> put it back tomorrow at the latest...

Thanks.

> They still are normal points that get configured by the end user, are
> they
> not? Sorry, you got me confused here...

You are right, they are normal points that get configured by the end user but the developer of an I/O module can prompt the end user (in the log file) of useful points that should be used, such as....

The point "Raise_lift" has blown fuse detection. Please create a point called "Raise_lift.fuse".

The point "oven_temp" has open circuit detection. Pleas create a point called
"oven_temp.open_cct".

So it should make it nicer for the end users to decided if they want the feature or not and it keeps a kind of object oriented style of identification as opposed to creating a completely new name for the point.

> Philip, It would be nice if you could bring the modbus modules into
> the framework of the generic io library. What do you think?

I have a feeling that I'll struggle to do it but I'll try to have a go :+|
It is the right thing to do though, I agree.

--

Regards

Philip Costigan

_______________________________________________
LinuxPLC mailing list
[email protected]
http://linuxplc.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxplc

 

[status points]
> it keeps a kind of object oriented style of identification as opposed to
> creating a completely new name for the point.

(He he, except that it *is* a completely new name; it just looks OO.)

Mario:
> > Philip, It would be nice if you could bring the modbus modules into the
> > framework of the generic io library. What do you think?

Philip Costigan:
> I have a feeling that I'll struggle to do it but I'll try to have a go
> :+| It is the right thing to do though, I agree.

It'd be good if you could keep notes and/or write up your experience of doing this - you have working knowledge of the lPLC but aren't immersed in it excessively, which is a good combination for documenting the io library.


Jiri
--
Jiri Baum <[email protected]>
"In my opinion, the GPL is optimized to build a strong software community at the expense of a strong commercial software business model."
--Craig Mundie, Senior VP, Microsoft; 17 May 2001

_______________________________________________
LinuxPLC mailing list
[email protected]
http://linuxplc.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxplc

 

Philip Costigan wrote:
>
> On Tue, 29 May 2001 00:08, Mario wrote:
(...)
> > To tell you
> > the truth I've just been going through that function again and convinced
> > myself that it makes sense to have it in the generic io library. I'll
> > put it back tomorrow at the latest...
>
> Thanks.

I've been a little busy with other stuff, but I haven't forgotten. I'll do it as soon as I can.

> > Philip, It would be nice if you could bring the modbus modules into
> > the framework of the generic io library. What do you think?
> >
>
> I have a feeling that I'll struggle to do it but I'll try to have a go :+|
> It is the right thing to do though, I agree.
>

Thanks! If you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask!


Cheers,
Mario.

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mario J. R. de Sousa
[email protected]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

The box said it requires Windows 95 or better, so I installed Linux

_______________________________________________
LinuxPLC mailing list
[email protected]
http://linuxplc.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxplc