Hey Matthias, Personally, I feel that it would be better for users to keep fields "domain" specific. At least I love that for S7 (and our users too). Perhaps we can introduce also a general unified language for that but optionally provide a specific one for each protocol.
What do others think? Julian Am 16.07.19, 09:02 schrieb "Strljic, Matthias Milan" <[email protected]>: Hi Julian, I think that is a really good question. For the Connection String I would agree (+1) for your suggestion. But wanted to ask if there is a notation which is domain specific to a protocol from the "user" point of view? Like we have it in the FieldAddresses. So that we just throw into a discussion about a neutral PLC4X definition or a domain centered one (which should also include a guideline)? For Connection Strings my opionion would follow yours @Julian Feinauer. +1 for Camel Style 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: [email protected] Web: http://www.isw.uni-stuttgart.de -----Original Message----- From: Julian Feinauer <[email protected]> Sent: Saturday, July 13, 2019 10:05 AM To: [email protected] Subject: [DISCUSS] change connection string format Hi all, Currently we have no fixed rules on how a connection string should look like and everybody has its own regrex (except for the first part). This is bad from a stylistic point of view but also leads to confusion like with PLC4X-134 [1]. I suggest to take the schema used in apache Camel which is oriented at url / urn, see [2]. This allows - central parsing -more efficient handling of missing parameters -default values -its a standard! What do others think? Julian [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PLC4X-134 [2] https://camel.apache.org/how-do-i-configure-endpoints.html Von meinem Mobiltelefon gesendet
