On Fri, 2011-08-12 at 10:31 +0100, andy pugh wrote: > On 12 August 2011 08:09, Karl Cunningham <ka...@keckec.com> wrote: > > > I have no problem with the debounce logic, my question is one of pros > > and cons and customs. Is it preferred to have all functions like this > > contained within the one component? > > I would debounce in your comp. It keeps the HAL clearer, and will > probably eat less CPU. >
As I see it... I tend to try to use existing components if I can. Older components will have experience and trouble shooting behind them, and be better understood by more people. On the other hand, The order that the components or their functions run can often be an issue. If users are allowed to set up the order, they will often get the order wrong. If the debounce is inside the Quick-Change component, when it runs can be permanently set for the particular application. Debounce is time dependent, some threads may not have enough time to run within a thread period, unless the code just counts the successive thread passes (I think the generic Debounce does this, but i don't remember) then sets a state to allow a process to continue. I'm not a good programmer, so grains of salt are appropriate here, but it may be unwise to put any, many or long loops within a component function. That's what comes to mind so far. -- Kirk Wallace http://www.wallacecompany.com/machine_shop/ http://www.wallacecompany.com/E45/index.html California, USA ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ FREE DOWNLOAD - uberSVN with Social Coding for Subversion. Subversion made easy with a complete admin console. Easy to use, easy to manage, easy to install, easy to extend. Get a Free download of the new open ALM Subversion platform now. http://p.sf.net/sfu/wandisco-dev2dev _______________________________________________ Emc-users mailing list Emc-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-users
