plc4x-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Julian Feinauer <j.feina...@pragmaticminds.de>
Subject Re: API Changes proposal
Date Thu, 06 Sep 2018 08:53:35 GMT
Hi Chris,

thank you so much for your effort! 
I can't wait for the refactoring to be finished (and the release of course).
I'm following your branch and as you implemented most of the things we discussed I think its
best to wait till you are finished and merge and then start off with the new S7 Syntax based
on your branch.

Best
Julian

´╗┐Am 05.09.18, 22:55 schrieb "Christofer Dutz" <christofer.dutz@c-ware.de>:

    Hi all,
    
    just wanted to give you an update on my progress.
    
    I started with updating the examples and integrations and quickly came to a point, where
I had to continue finishing the API refactoring and the base-driver refactoring.
    
    So I just committed my last changes that should make it possible to build Read & Write-Requests.
I really hope to finish this refactoring in the next two days as it's totally driving me nuts.
    For the last few days every dream at night has been dealing with architectural problems,
byte encoding and stuff like that ... that has to change ;-)
    
    Just as an example ... the new S7PlcFieldHandlerTest now runs additional 7178 individual
tests to test all combinations of Java and S7 type combinations and their respective value
ranges (MIN, MAX, 0, Some random value).
    I still need to implement the temporal types Time, Date and DateTime, and test the "ULWORD"
types, but I guess most should be somewhat usable. 
    Wouldn't have thought that the Write direction was so much more work than the Read path.
    
    So much for the Update ...
    
    Chris
    
    
    
    Am 03.09.18, 13:53 schrieb "Julian Feinauer" <j.feinauer@pragmaticminds.de>:
    
        Hi Chris,
        
        exactly, that was my point (sorry for writing it not out clearly).
        We can do it that way the only thing we are "loosing" is to know whether bit was given
by the user explicitly or not.
        I dont know if we need this after parsing is finished anymore.
        
        So we can also do it your way.
        
        Julian
        
        Am 03.09.18, 10:47 schrieb "Christofer Dutz" <christofer.dutz@c-ware.de>:
        
            Hi Julian,
            
            had to think a little to get your point ... but think I have ... In my example
it's a primitive "short" and in yours it's "Short" as nullable non-primitive-type.
            I don't technically prefer any of the two options. Physically the bit-offset of
any non-bit type is always 0 and not null (as in undefined) as every non-bit value always
starts at bit 0 ... so for that reason I would prefer "short" with default 0 over the "Short"
nullable version. And this way we don't have to add null-checks in the code. But as I said
... that's a very slight preference for that option.
            
            Chris
            
            Am 03.09.18, 10:27 schrieb "Julian Feinauer" <j.feinauer@pragmaticminds.de>:
            
                Hi chris,
                
                I agree with your S7 field except for one little change.
                How do we proceed with the (optional) bit offset?
                I made it "Short" with the contract that null indicates no offset given.
                Another alternative would be to make it 0 as default or even Optional.
                I would prefer to have it nullable, what do you think?
                
                With the rest I'm fine but as this is part of our internal API now I think
we also have more freedom with evolving them as its not visible to users.
                
                For all other parts of your proposal +1 from me.
                
                Best
                Julian
                
                Am 30.08.18, 10:15 schrieb "Christofer Dutz" <christofer.dutz@c-ware.de>:
                
                    Hi all,
                    
                    especially @Julian ... could you please have a look at that I did with
the S7Field [1]?
                    Also there is a unit-test that should allow adding more statements and
testing everything is working ok [2].
                    
                    Does this match your idea on [3]? Looking at your addresses, I think that
I might have not quite got it ... is there always a "D" as first part after the "."? I always
read it as "DB" like Data Block ... but seeing DX and SW makes me wonder ... a quick check
in my TIA shows me the address of a Boolean field in a Data Block is "%DB1.DBX38.1" ... which
one is correct?
                    
                    As we're no longer constructing the objects themselves in the API, I took
the liberty to simplify the field objects so we now only have one type for S7.
                    
                    Chris
                    
                    [1] https://github.com/apache/incubator-plc4x/blob/feature/api-redesign-chris-c/plc4j/protocols/s7/src/main/java/org/apache/plc4x/java/s7/model/S7Field.java
                    [2] https://github.com/apache/incubator-plc4x/blob/feature/api-redesign-chris-c/plc4j/protocols/s7/src/test/java/org/apache/plc4x/java/s7/model/S7FieldTests.java
                    [3] https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=89070222
                    
                    
                    Am 28.08.18, 12:23 schrieb "Christofer Dutz" <christofer.dutz@c-ware.de>:
                    
                        Hi all,
                        
                        I just pushed changes to my API refactoring branch ... so far I only
adjusted the API module and added an example using the changed API.
                        To have a look, please go to [1] ...
                        
                        General changes I implemented while working on the refactoring itself.
I did notice, that my current proposal "chris-2" did 
                        
                        Having to inject the type conversion code would have made it necessary
to inject a converter which didn't feel right. So I changed the API to be purely interface
based.
                        In order to be able to construct these objects I also added builders
for them. 
                        
                        I asked a few people here what they think, and most liked the simplicity
and didn't have any WTF experiences (Which seems to be a good thing as I did have to explain
a lot with the current API)
                        
                        Quick Feedback highly appreciated as I will start implementing DefaultPlcReadRequest
& Co (in driver-base ... together with the builders) after that I'll start migrating the
drivers. 
                        Right now having a look a named example [1] would be a good start
... 
                        Second would be a deeper look into the API module [2].
                        
                        Would be a shame to waste that time and effort if you think the changes
suck (or are less than optimal as non-Germans would probably call them ;-) ) .
                        
                        Chris
                        
                        [1] https://github.com/apache/incubator-plc4x/blob/feature/api-redesign-chris-c/examples/hello-plc4x/src/main/java/org/apache/plc4x/java/examples/helloplc4x/HelloPlc4x.java
                        [2] https://github.com/apache/incubator-plc4x/tree/feature/api-redesign-chris-c/plc4j/api
                        
                        
                        Am 27.08.18, 09:57 schrieb "Christofer Dutz" <christofer.dutz@c-ware.de>:
                        
                            Ups ... after reloading .. I just saw Julians Proposal pop up
... haven't looked into that ...
                            Will do that right away.
                            
                            Chris
                            
                            Am 25.08.18, 15:52 schrieb "Christofer Dutz" <christofer.dutz@c-ware.de>:
                            
                                Hi Julian,
                                
                                version 2 should now be quite different ... I started reworking
my original proposal and decided to revert that an start a second proposal.
                                My first did address some parts needing cleaning up, but I
still wasn't quite satisfied with it. So I did another more radical refactoring.
                                
                                If you reload the second there should be a lot of differences.
                                
                                I just hit "save" a few minutes ago however ... but now I'm
quite happy with it. So please have another look at the second proposal. 
                                
                                And please, maybe add your own proposal ... my versions are
just Brainstorming from my side.
                                
                                My favorite is currently "Chris' Proposal 2" ;-)
                                
                                Chris
                                
                                  
                        
                        
                    
                    
                
                
            
            
        
        
    
    

Mime
View raw message