[foxboro] More FoxAPI/OM optimization questions


The discussion on whether FoxAPI optimized multiple C:B:P requests from
different FoxAPI client applications to a single OM connection (it does,
spake Dr. Alex :) got me to thinking:  what about other optimization?

Let's say I have an application that opens one FoxAPI list for the
following data:

C1:B1:P1
C1:B2:P1
C1:B3:P1
.
.
.
C1:B10:P1

and a second FoxAPI list with the following data:

C1:B11:P1
C1:B12:P1
C1:B13:P1
.
.
.
C1:B20:P1

Will FoxAPI merge those lists into a single OM list (since all the
requested C:B:Ps reside in the same CP)?

This came to mind because we use Aspen IP.21, and we were told by Aspen to
try to configure collection groups so that they did not span CPs; I believe
their rationale was that FoxAPI did *not* perform the optimization in the
above example and you could incur unnecessary CP overhead processing a
bunch of short lists.

Any thoughts?

Corey Clingo
BASF Corp.


 
 
_______________________________________________________________________
This mailing list is neither sponsored nor endorsed by Invensys Process
Systems (formerly The Foxboro Company). Use the info you obtain here at
your own risks. Read http://www.thecassandraproject.org/disclaimer.html
 
foxboro mailing list:             http://www.freelists.org/list/foxboro
to subscribe:         mailto:foxboro-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=join
to unsubscribe:      mailto:foxboro-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=leave

Other related posts: