Re: Reply to Ben Ocko re: pseudomotors

[Grant Bunker <bunker@biocat1.phys.iit.edu>]

We've been very happy with MX as a layer above EPICS and other devices.
It's flexible and more easily changed than crate level programming. The
only limitation (which hasn't been a problem) is that we run it on our
workstation instead of in the crate, so tcp/ip latencies could be an
issue for some control problems. But in that case we push the fast stuff
down into the crate or into hardware. 

MX is a very useful tool, especially in its client/server incarnation, it 
and keeps getting better. It's callable from TCL/TK and supports scripting
out of the box. 

Definitely worth a look. 

grant

ps ask Bill Lavender for details

On Sun, 24 Jan 1999, Arun Bommannavar wrote:

> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bill Lavender <lavender@sparky.csrri.iit.edu>
> To: beamline_controls@aps.anl.gov <beamline_controls@aps.anl.gov>
> Date: Sunday, January 24, 1999 6:46 PM
> Subject: Re: Reply to Ben Ocko re: pseudomotors
> 
> 
> 
> >
> >The advantage (for me, at least) is that it is much simpler to build
> >pseudomotors using my MX library than it is to do the same thing using
> >lots of links in an EPICS IOC.
> 
> Much much simpler,  in sequence programming (SNL)  as opposed to database
> programming. Offcourse, Tim may disagree with that statement.<g>.
> 
> 
> **********************************
> Arun S. Bommannavar    Voice (630) 252 - 0333
> Bldg.No. 433-A008          Fax    (630) 252 - 0339
> 9700 South Cass Avenue
> Argonne National Laboratory  E Mail  arun@anl.gov
> Argonne, IL 60439
> 
> 
>