Hi all,

Well the thing is, that if we take discussions to the issue, people on the list 
aren't included in this. So if there are usage aspects, they should be 
discussed here, I think. Otherwise we would require folks to automatically 
monitor other sources too. However I'm fine with implementation details being 
discussed there.

After all, the Apache mantra is: "if it didn't happen on the list, it didn't 


Outlook for Android<https://aka.ms/ghei36> herunterladen

From: Julian Feinauer <j.feina...@pragmaticminds.de>
Sent: Saturday, August 11, 2018 10:34:17 AM
To: dev@plc4x.apache.org
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Change the format of the S7 Adresses

Hi all,

as it seems like everybody agreed on the proposed API Change / extension I 
allowed myself to create an Issue for this to coordinate the work on that under 

I suggest that we move further discussion there.

Is this okay for all of you?


´╗┐Am 07.08.18, 13:06 schrieb "Julian Feinauer" <j.feina...@pragmaticminds.de>:


    Looks good to me.



    Am 07.08.18, 12:53 schrieb "Christofer Dutz" <christofer.d...@c-ware.de>:

        Hi Julian,

        well I would propose to add the type suffix with ":{typename}" but 
unfortunately every system has its own types and interpretations.

        So our current S7 address would look like this:

        DATA_BLOCKS/1/0 --[would be changed to]--> DATA_BLOCKS/1/0:INT

        One universal notation for addresses in all drivers will probably not 
work. For example with Modbus the memory block (Coils or Registers) for example 
determins the datatype and with Ethernet/IP for example the address will 
probably look more like:


        Which means:



        Am 07.08.18, 12:39 schrieb "Julian Feinauer" 

            Hi Chris,

            I guess I'm fine with everything but perhaps we should try to find 
a syntax which goes well for all drivers where this feature is needed.

            Could you post an example string for such a suffix?

            And I'm definetly for a "guessing" feature to keep support for the 
current API.


            Am 07.08.18, 11:25 schrieb "Christofer Dutz" 

                Yeah ... I guess you are right (

                And regarding Sebastian's suggestion to keep the "it friendly" 
format. I think this shouldn't be a problem.

                All we need are more pattern matchers. What we do need however 
is an extension of the existing format to add the type ...

                Not quite sure if we should prefix the existing strings with a 
type or add them with a suffix.

                I think I would prefer a suffix ... If we make it a suffix, we 
could make it optional and guess a fitting default type if omitted (same 
behavior as now)+


                Am 03.08.18, 15:53 schrieb "Julian Feinauer" 

                    Just a small note to your example, in case of the "DOUBLE" 
we should write LREAL und relly stick to  the TIA naming.

                    Just stating that to avoid confusion.


                    Am 03.08.18, 15:42 schrieb "Christofer Dutz" 

                        This is the Discussion thread, so please perform any 
form of discussion here to keep the vote thread clean and readable.


Reply via email to