![sp_Feed](https://forum.prosysopc.com/wp-content/sp-resources/forum-themes/default/images/sp_Feed.png)
![sp_TopicIcon](https://forum.prosysopc.com/wp-content/sp-resources/forum-themes/default/images/sp_TopicIcon.png)
10:18, EET
![Avatar](https://forum.prosysopc.com/wp-content/sp-resources/forum-avatars/defaults/userdefault.png)
March 26, 2021
![sp_UserOfflineSmall](https://forum.prosysopc.com/wp-content/sp-resources/forum-themes/default/images/sp_UserOfflineSmall.png)
Hello,
I’m exploring the possibilities with the address space and I’m annoyed by a peculiarity of our system inherited from the item addressing method used before the switch to the server using Prosys Sentrol.
To explain briefly, in that system items are defined as:
(IP address)!(expression)
For example:
LocalHost!R[10]
192.168.1.10!Task1.P[4].Counter
I wanted to take advantage of the new browsing possibilities to move to a space modelling this
192.168.1.10
    + Task1
        + P
           + [1]
           + [2]
           + [3]
           + [4]
               + Counter
Defining the hierarchy is not a problem, but for the client the resulting item is :
192.168.1.10.Task1.P.[4].Counter
I can make the system tolerant and accept this syntax as well, and then correct it in the FindItem event, but before I do that I would have liked a confirmation that there is no other possible solution to define this Fullpath in a custom way.
Another question, is there a “good” way to handle arrays and allow access in the browser to different index values?
Thanks in advance
11:17, EET
![Avatar](https://forum.prosysopc.com/wp-content/sp-resources/forum-avatars/1496998201jaro_researchgate_2017.jpg)
December 21, 2011
![sp_UserOfflineSmall](https://forum.prosysopc.com/wp-content/sp-resources/forum-themes/default/images/sp_UserOfflineSmall.png)
Good question 🙂 Which means that the answer is not so good…
I took a look and it seems that it’s pretty much hardcoded that the address space tree levels are using a single character and the customisations are not really possible without modifications to the components.
Regarding arrays, there is no specific handling for the array elements, so you would need to break them up yourself. In your case, it seems even that the array elements are in the middle of the tree, which makes it even more tricky.
If you find a way to customise these in your code – or how the component interface could be improved to support this in practice, I would be happy to hear, though.
Most Users Ever Online: 518
Currently Online:
7 Guest(s)
Currently Browsing this Page:
1 Guest(s)
Top Posters:
Heikki Tahvanainen: 402
hbrackel: 142
pramanj: 86
rocket science: 85
Francesco Zambon: 83
Ibrahim: 78
Sabari: 62
kapsl: 57
gjevremovic: 49
Xavier: 43
Member Stats:
Guest Posters: 0
Members: 724
Moderators: 7
Admins: 1
Forum Stats:
Groups: 3
Forums: 15
Topics: 1495
Posts: 6352
Newest Members:
armandovarley, dole, rustyhammer, braydenaquino6, blaircleveland0, maribelkeeler7, Nicky, rickymeade2, niamhtoussaint0, adamq0505309Moderators: Jouni Aro: 1017, Pyry: 1, Petri: 0, Bjarne Boström: 1003, Jimmy Ni: 26, Matti Siponen: 337, Lusetti: 0
Administrators: admin: 1