Hi Chris,

Yes I think this is a good idea, especially when I am thinking about our
starting development in Python to have two separate configs for connection
and transpor seems to be a good approach.

Lukas

Am Fr., 2. Okt. 2020 um 09:25 Uhr schrieb Christofer Dutz <
christofer.dutz@c-ware.de>:

> Hi all,
>
> We currently parse prepare one configuration for each connection. This
> configuration contains all the information needed to setup the transport as
> well as the driver itself.
> The thing I see with this, is that the driver needs to know about all
> transports. Now imagine we come up with some “quantum-entanglement”
> transport … we would need to extend all drivers that theoretically support
> that.
> I never really was quite happy with this, I have to admit, but it worked
> for now.
>
> When building PLC4C I implemented things differently.
>
> Here I have a parser that goes through the properties in the connection
> url and makes this information available.
> Now I get the driver depending on the url and this creates and initializes
> a driver-config structure … now this can update the default properties in
> there with overrides from the connection-url-parameter.
> After that’s done the driver knows which transport he needs and accesses
> that. This creates it’s own config structure and initializes that and then
> overrides from the connection url can be applied.
>
> What I’m saying is: Currently we have one config … I would like to split
> this up into a “ConnectionConfig” and a “TransportConfig” … this should
> really separate things cleanly.
>
> What do you think?
>
> Chris
>