d8fe325dc0
Hold counters internally instead of exposing (and duplicating) counting code in other compile units Remove deleteFunc list. This should be handled by another mechanism. CDRMonitor is debugging code. Use internal singly linked list to avoid special handling of LinkedList.
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="iso-8859-1"?>
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN"
"http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd">
<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1" />
<title>EPICS pvData C++</title>
</head>
<body>
<h1 style="text-align: center">EPICS pvData C++<br />
Overview<br />
2010.08.10</h1>
CONTENTS
<hr />
<h2 style="text-align: center">Introduction</h2>
<hr />
<p>This project has the begining of the C++ implementation of pvData. The
following is done:</p>
<dl>
<dt>introspection interfaces</dt>
<dd>The introspection interfaces for clients are described.</dd>
<dt>introspection implementation</dt>
<dd>The following have been implemented: Type, ScalarType, Field,
Scalar</dd>
<dt>test</dt>
<dd>A test of Scalar.</dd>
<dt>As mentioned below there are problems with the current
implementation.</dt>
</dl>
<hr />
<h2 style="text-align: center">Building</h2>
<hr />
<p>The project is structured as an epics base client application. Edit
configure/RELEASE so that it references your EPICS base and then just
type:</p>
<pre> make</pre>
<p>At the top. Then execute the test in the bin directory.</p>
<p>pvDataApp has the following sub directories:</p>
<dl>
<dt>pv</dt>
<dd>pvData.h has the interface descriptions for client code.</dd>
<dt>factory</dt>
<dd>FieldCreateFactory.cpp has the current implementation</dd>
<dt>test</dt>
<dd>Has a test for the current implementation.</dd>
</dl>
<hr />
<h2 style="text-align: center">Questions about Classes</h2>
<hr />
<p>The pure virtual classes defined in pvData.h now work. But there are still
some things that are not so nice. Amoung these are:</p>
<ul>
<li>In FieldCreateFactory.cpp look for "WHY DO I". It asks why the derived
class must also define methods defined in the base class. If it does not
then a compilation error occurs. WHY??? </li>
<li>The toString methods have an argument of "std::string &buf" instead
of "std::string *". Does this seem correct?</li>
<li>Can arguments and return descriptions be defined better?</li>
<li>Is const present everywhere it should be? Remember that introspection
classes are immutable.</li>
<li>The code is NOT thread safe. When we decide for sure what thread/lock
support to choose I will fix this.</li>
</ul>
<p>HELP WILL BE GREATLY APPRECIATED. because I am still coming up to speed
with c++</p>
<hr />
<h2 style="text-align: center">Garbage Collection</h2>
<hr />
<p>Not yet implemented. Lets get class structure correct first.</p>
</body>
</html>