Hi Chris, There I would throw in a counter-question, namely whether it would be important at this level to distinguish between automation protocols and fieldbus systems as AbstracConnectors? Because Profinet and EtherCat are protocols that differ a bit from the data handling of an OPC UA, ADS or S7 and are also quite sensitive regarding the deterministic real-time (EtherCat is a bit looser). Those types need a bit more configuration information like message structure, pull rate and master node.
Then, of course, it would have to be evaluated whether these two communication systems should be separated and whether automation protocols exist on a basis other than TCP/UDP? Just take it as creative discussion point. Greetings Matthias Strljic, M.Sc. Universität Stuttgart Institut für Steuerungstechnik der Werkzeugmaschinen und Fertigungseinrichtungen (ISW) Seidenstraße 36 70174 Stuttgart GERMANY Tel: +49 711 685-84530 Fax: +49 711 685-74530 E-Mail: matthias.strl...@isw.uni-stuttgart.de Web: http://www.isw.uni-stuttgart.de -----Original Message----- From: Christofer Dutz <christofer.d...@c-ware.de> Sent: Monday, April 1, 2019 10:06 AM To: dev@plc4x.apache.org Subject: Some of the latest changes 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
