On 3 February 2015 20:08, quoth Knud Baastrup: > Yes, I decided not to use the alias as matching criteria for the slave data > due to the "tree points" intended use of aliases. Currently we do not use > aliases on our modules, but we are planning to introduce this in the near > future to prevent that some modules get the wrong configuration if a rack of > modules (with same vendor and product code as the following rack) are > disconnected due to wire/power break. What do you mean by the "master > configurator" ?
Depending on context, either the software that sets up the network layout (assigning aliases, saving persistent parameters, etc), or the person in charge of doing that work for a particular installation. Depending on how your application and network operate, sometimes that's an explicit step, and sometimes it's part of the application. Since I'm a lazy person, when our modules are assigned a serial number during production they get that assigned as their alias as well (although they can also be explicitly assigned a different alias if the network configurator wishes), which simplifies network configuration quite a bit. But then, these are discrete units rather than "racks" so there's a higher chance they'll get wired in an unexpected order, so I think this provides the best compromise in network flexibility. YMMV. _______________________________________________ etherlab-dev mailing list etherlab-dev@etherlab.org http://lists.etherlab.org/mailman/listinfo/etherlab-dev
