Re: [foxboro] Object Manager question
- From: "Johnson, Alex (Foxboro)" <ajohnson@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: foxboro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 11 May 2005 08:06:42 -0400
Sascha,
If the OM set fails, you should be getting an operation error in the
sequence block. Are you? If so, you should setup an exception handler =
to
trap the problem and take a reasonable action - retries are pretty easy =
to
implement.
As far as block execution is concerned, the CP's Block Processor is a
single-threaded process that "owns" the CP when it is executing. Thus, =
only
one block is active/executing at any given moment.
So, there is no queueing of sets.
There might be interference between various blocks in the same CP.
I'll see what else I can find out that might be of use.
Regards,
=20
Alex Johnson
Invensys Process Systems
Invensys Systems, Inc.
10707 Haddington
Houston, TX 77043
713.722.2859 (voice)
713.722.2700 (switchboard)
713.932.0222 (fax)
ajohnson@xxxxxxxxxxx
-----Original Message-----
From: foxboro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx =
[mailto:foxboro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Sascha Wildner
Sent: Wednesday, May 11, 2005 1:39 AM
To: Foxboro DCS Mail List
Subject: [foxboro] Object Manager question
Hi,
I have a question regarding the processing of full path name writes=20
coming from sequence blocks:
At one of our customers, we have a couple of sequence blocks all =
waiting=20
independently for some CALC's TIM reaching a certain value (all=20
sequences wait for the same value) and then writing to different=20
parameters of another block (i.e. first sequence writes to RI01 of the=20
block, second one to RI02 and so on). All those sequences, the CALC=20
providing the TIM and the block they write to are in the same compound.
Sometimes these writes do not happen (randomly, it seems) and after=20
double- and triple-checking the sequence code I now suspect that =
writing=20
to the same block at the same time from different sequences is the =
problem.
Does anyone have FoxDOC pointers regarding the internal processing=20
(queuing) of these writes? In fact, is there documentation on how=20
sequence code in general is being processed by the CP for more than one =
sequence running? Is the block whose parameters are written being=20
secured for the time one sequence writes to it? Could this cause=20
problems for any other sequence in the system that tries to write to =
it?
Have a nice day.
--=20
Regards,
Sascha Wildner
erpicon Software Development GmbH
Neusser Str. 724-726
50737 K=F6ln
Germany
Phone: +49 221 9746069
Fax: +49 221 9746099
eMail: swildner@xxxxxxxxxx
=20
=20
_______________________________________________________________________
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
=20
foxboro mailing list: //www.freelists.org/list/foxboro
to subscribe: =
mailto:foxboro-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=3Djoin
to unsubscribe: =
mailto:foxboro-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=3Dleave
=20
_______________________________________________________________________
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: //www.freelists.org/list/foxboro
to subscribe: mailto:foxboro-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=join
to unsubscribe: mailto:foxboro-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=leave
Other related posts:
