Doesn’t the user need access to the response code for each annotated item?
I’m unclear on why a Direction is needed/desired. Is it just for
“documentation" of what is possible for an item at that address? Maybe it
would be checked when the annotated class is used in a Read vs Write request to
verify the request makes sense for that item? Or… ?
Could you provide some small pseudo-code of how the app would use the API with
such an annotated class.
class MyAnnotatedClass { … };
PlcConnection connection = PlcDriver(…);
// make a read requests
…?
// access data in the responses
…?
— Dale
> On Feb 19, 2018, at 6:16 AM, Christofer Dutz <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> in the past I have been thinking how we can make the batch reads as simple as
> possible.
>
> I would like to introduce an idea I had:
>
> What if we started supporting annotated POJO classes? (The following names
> are just ideas …)
>
> A POJO class could be annotated with some “@PlcEntity” annotation.
> A property inside one of these classes could then be annotated with
> “@PlcProperty”
> This PlcProperty could have the following attributes:
>
> * Direction (Read/Write/Read&Write)
> * Property (Name of a property that provides the address in the PLC)
> * Address (Alternative to provide the address directly and give up on the
> flexibility to change the PLC-type / Protocol)
>
> Providing would definitely be the less preferred option, but I guess we would
> have to provide a way that is extremely simple for new developers to get
> started. I wouldn’t want to overwhelm them with too much magic in the start.
>
> The connection could be extended to look a (configurable) property file. A
> property property (😉) would then use this property map in the connection to
> get the real address string for the given property - hereby keeping the full
> portability.
>
> Maybe it would be better to have two separate property annotations: one for
> property-based and one for hard-coded address strings.
>
> The benefit would be that we then could simplify the integrations to
> frameworks like Edgent as we could create sources and sinks based on the POJO
> type.
>
> What do you think?
>
> Chris
