Hi Everyone,
as Chris already mentioned a logic analyzer is quite a nice tool and in (loose)
analogy to plc4x I would propose something like "Analyze4PLC" Or "PLCAnalyze4J"
it would keep the logic in the naming convention somehow and make clear what
the intention of the framework is.
Just my 50 cents.
Best,
Björn
-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: Julian Feinauer <j.feina...@pragmaticminds.de>
Gesendet: Dienstag, 17. September 2019 00:03
An: dev@plc4x.apache.org; megachu...@gmail.com
Betreff: Re: [DISCUSS] Rename CRUNCH to something different
Hi Kai,
I understand your point. But I dislike to call things like "process" or
"compute" as these are such overused words. Windows calc does compute,
Mainframes do compute, Hadoop nodes do compute...
Target audience is PLC4X users so something between IT and OT. And in fact, as
the lib is quite a bit specialiced and think its reasonable to have people look
at the docs first : )
But, I mean we are (as Chris pointed out) still in the process of consent
building, so its good to get so many opinions here.
Julian
Am 16.09.19, 13:43 schrieb "Kai Wähner" <megachu...@gmail.com>:
The question is "who should understand what the component does" when he
reads the component name (without any further descriptions)?
If it is software developers, then they will have no idea what
"osciloscope" means (I don't either). I only understand simple words like
Connect, Process, Store, etc. :-)
Even if osciloscope is more accurate, the question is who is the audience
for potential users of PLC4X and its sub-components.
Kai
On Mon, Sep 16, 2019 at 10:14 AM Christofer Dutz <christofer.d...@c-ware.de>
wrote:
> Hi Julian,
>
> A common pattern of modern ASF duels seems to be writing longer and longer
> emails till someone finally gives up ;-)
>
> Chris
>
>
> Am 16.09.19, 18:51 schrieb "Julian Feinauer" <
> j.feina...@pragmaticminds.de>:
>
> Hi,
>
> ist not that i disagree with you, I just don’t agree : D
> Logic Analyzer sounds weird for me (but I'm also not so used to that).
>
> So we should go on discussing.. and if no consensus is found we meet
> somewhere, two men, nobody else, no guns (and no bears!). Knifes are
> probably okay (have to check the Apache Policy on consensus finding
> again...) : )
>
> Julian
>
> Am 16.09.19, 09:45 schrieb "Christofer Dutz" <
> christofer.d...@c-ware.de>:
>
> Hi julian,
>
> Well coming back to your explanation:
> I would never use an oszyloscope to analyze such plc signals they
> have a far to low frequency for oszylloscope analysis. Especially an
> oszylloscope requires things to have a frequency and you couldn't detect
> simple low frequent logic level shifts.
> Thinking about how I usually analyze signals in the IoT space, I
> always use my Logic-Analyzer which is much more suited for such tasks.
> So if we would stick to your reasoning, I would prefer "logic
> analyzer" instead of "oszylloscope".
>
> Chris
>
>
> Am 16.09.19, 17:37 schrieb "Julian Feinauer" <
> j.feina...@pragmaticminds.de>:
>
> Hi,
>
> although I agree with Chris and Kai (better name things
> functionally) I personally prefer something like 'osciloscope' as it
> transpoets the intent of the lib better than 'process' or 'compute'-
>
> Oscilloscopes are known to help you with analyzing signals, in
> fact Wikipedia states:
>
> "The waveform can then be analyzed for properties such as
> amplitude, frequency, rise time, time interval, distortion, and others.
> Modern digital instruments may calculate and display these properties
> directly. Originally, calculation of these values required manually
> measuring the waveform against the scales built into the screen of the
> instrument.[3]"
>
> So I think this is the name I prefer most, especially because
> it brings the intent as close as possible.
>
> Julian
>
>
> Am 16.09.19, 02:36 schrieb "Strljic, Matthias Milan" <
> matthias.strl...@isw.uni-stuttgart.de>:
>
> +1 for that. I am not a fan of fancy cool names 😊. So
> Processing / Filter / SignalWatchDog would be better for me.
>
> Greetings Mathi
> 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
>
> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: Christofer Dutz <christofer.d...@c-ware.de>
> Gesendet: Sunday, September 15, 2019 7:09 PM
> An: dev@plc4x.apache.org
> Betreff: Re: [DISCUSS] Rename CRUNCH to something
different
>
> Hi all,
>
> The thing with Oszilloskope and dsp that I see, ist that
> für me it sort off relates to hard- and not Software (but that might just
> be me).
>
> I was discussing this with Julian here at apachecon and I
> quite like the idea of calling the current layer "PLC4X connect" and the
> new one "PLC4X process".
>
> Chris
>
> Holen Sie sich Outlook für Android<https://aka.ms/ghei36>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Tim Mitsch <t.mit...@pragmaticindustries.de>
> Sent: Sunday, September 15, 2019 9:43:13 AM
> To: dev@plc4x.apache.org <dev@plc4x.apache.org>
> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Rename CRUNCH to something
different
>
> Hey,
>
> As i'm electrical engineer i like the name oscilloscope.
> But full ack to Kai, name should be clearer.
> Furthermore i like Kai's suggestion PLC4X DSP as it is
> short and clear what Crunch does ... processing and analyzing digitalized
> data. Maybe we could also call it PLC4X MSP for 'Mixed Signal Processing'
> or any other artifical acronym.
>
> Best
> Tim
>
> Am 15.09.19, 18:20 schrieb "Kai Wähner" <
> megachu...@gmail.com>:
>
> I would vote for something like Niclas proposed. Much
> clearer than having
> yet another product / component name...
>
> For instance, PLC4X DSP, PLC4X Signal Processor, or
> something what clearly
> describes in one or two words / shortcuts what the
> component does.
>
> See Kafka and its ecosystem: Kafka Connect, Kafka
> Streams, Confluent Schema
> Registry, Confluent Rest Proxy, Confluent Control
> Center, etc...
>
> Kai
>
> On Sun, Sep 15, 2019 at 9:05 AM Julian Feinauer <
> j.feina...@pragmaticminds.de> wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > I was thinking about naming and came up with ideas
> like...
> >
> > - trace4j
> > - dsp4j (digital signal processing, that is)
> > - pluse (as we detect pulses and stuff)
> > - oscilloscope <-- I quite like that, it fits quite
> well as we really look
> > into signals
> >
> > What are thoughts on those?
> >
> > J
> >
> > Am 08.09.19, 22:38 schrieb "Niclas Hedhman" <
> nic...@hedhman.org>:
> >
> > peanut gallery; I would recommend a descriptive
> name, in format of
> > "PLC4X
> > Abc", rather than a stand-alone name. Somewhere
> in the future, you may
> > have
> > a dozen of these and one wouldn't know where to
> start looking.
> >
> > Cheers
> > Niclas
> >
> > On Mon, Sep 9, 2019 at 4:51 AM Julian Feinauer <
> > j.feina...@pragmaticminds.de>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hi all,
> > >
> > > I just discussed (off-list) with Justin the
> next steps needed.
> > > They are
> > >
> > > * fill out software grant (pm)
> > > * Start IP clearance vote on incubator list
> (JF)
> > > * Gather ICLA from all contributors of CRUNCH
> > >
> > > Parallel I’d like to start a discuss on how we
> should call it as
> > PLC4X
> > > subproject.
> > >
> > > Any ideas or suggestions?
> > >
> > > Julian
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Niclas Hedhman, Software Developer
> > http://polygene.apache.org - New Energy for Java
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
