plc4x-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Julian Feinauer <>
Subject Re: API Changes proposal
Date Mon, 03 Sep 2018 08:26:45 GMT
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.


´╗┐Am 30.08.18, 10:15 schrieb "Christofer Dutz" <>:

    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
    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.
    Am 28.08.18, 12:23 schrieb "Christofer Dutz" <>:
        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
        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 ;-) ) .
        Am 27.08.18, 09:57 schrieb "Christofer Dutz" <>:
            Ups ... after reloading .. I just saw Julians Proposal pop up ... haven't looked
into that ...
            Will do that right away.
            Am 25.08.18, 15:52 schrieb "Christofer Dutz" <>:
                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" ;-)

View raw message