plc4x-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Christofer Dutz <>
Subject Re: Some of the latest changes
Date Mon, 01 Apr 2019 08:16:31 GMT
The thing is:

If we start implementing the functionality of a "ping" for other protocol types such as RawIp,
RawEthernet, Can, Serial, do we then start also adding "getSocketAddress", getCanIdentifier,
getSerialPortId and stuff like that?
I think that's a pretty unpretty way to do it.

I'll try to whip up a cleaner implementation ...


Am 01.04.19, 10:11 schrieb "Julian Feinauer" <>:

    Hi Chris,
    this was a decidion I made (and therefore exposed as PR).
    I think this is a good compromise between many protocols being on TCP / UDP and the fact
that we want to have the "ping" for most drivers.
    In fact, I intentionally implemented it as an Optional and stated in the JDoc that a non
TCP / UDP Driver should return Optional.empty().
    Do you agree with that?
    Otherwise, we can of course plan to implement it differently but then it gets more and
more tedious and perhaps we are missing something in driver implementations.
    Am 01.04.19, 10:06 schrieb "Christofer Dutz" <>:
        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 …

View raw message