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 ...
Chris
Am 01.04.19, 10:11 schrieb "Julian Feinauer" <j.feina...@pragmaticminds.de>:
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.
Julian
Am 01.04.19, 10:06 schrieb "Christofer Dutz" <christofer.d...@c-ware.de>:
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 …
Chris
