plc4x-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Strljic, Matthias Milan" <>
Subject RE: Some of the latest changes
Date Mon, 01 Apr 2019 08:27:35 GMT
Hi Chris,

There I would throw in a counter-question, namely whether it would be important at this level
to distinguish between automation protocols and fieldbus systems as AbstracConnectors? Because
Profinet and EtherCat are protocols that differ a bit from the data handling of an OPC UA,
ADS or S7 and are also quite sensitive regarding the deterministic real-time (EtherCat is
a bit looser). Those types need a bit more configuration information like message structure,
pull rate and master node.

Then, of course, it would have to be evaluated whether these two communication systems should
be separated and whether automation protocols exist on a basis other than TCP/UDP?
Just take it as creative discussion point.

Matthias Strljic, M.Sc.

Universität Stuttgart
Institut für Steuerungstechnik der Werkzeugmaschinen und Fertigungseinrichtungen (ISW)

Seidenstraße 36
70174 Stuttgart

Tel: +49 711 685-84530
Fax: +49 711 685-74530


-----Original Message-----
From: Christofer Dutz <>
Sent: Monday, April 1, 2019 10:06 AM
Subject: Some of the latest changes

Hi all,

today I simply have a little time to inspect the latest changes as I was travelling for 5
days ... I do have a few questions:

Why is AbstractPlcConnection been extended by a getInetSocketAddress method?

PlcConnections are not bound exclusively to TCP/UDP ... we currently already have Serial port
based connections and when going into protocols like Profinet and EtherCat in the future we'll
be going down to IP or even Ethernet level.
I don't like TCP/UDP details in the base abstract class for all drivers.

... continuing to evaluate ...


  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message