Avatar

Please consider registering
guest

sp_LogInOut Log In sp_Registration Register

Register | Lost password?
Advanced Search

— Forum Scope —




— Match —





— Forum Options —





Minimum search word length is 3 characters - maximum search word length is 84 characters

sp_Feed Topic RSS sp_TopicIcon
Problem with the FullPath method
January 26, 2022
10:18, EET
Avatar
DenisF
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 18
Member Since:
March 26, 2021
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

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

January 27, 2022
11:17, EET
Avatar
Jouni Aro
Moderator
Moderators
Forum Posts: 930
Member Since:
December 21, 2011
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

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.

Forum Timezone: Europe/Helsinki

Most Users Ever Online: 267

Currently Online:
13 Guest(s)

Currently Browsing this Page:
1 Guest(s)

Top Posters:

hbrackel: 120

pramanj: 86

ibrahim: 74

rocket science: 65

kapsl: 57

gjevremovic: 49

Xavier: 42

fred: 41

TimK: 41

Fransua33: 39

Member Stats:

Guest Posters: 0

Members: 2891

Moderators: 17

Admins: 1

Forum Stats:

Groups: 3

Forums: 15

Topics: 1261

Posts: 5369

Newest Members:

allisontz18, Elmer1493vok, AspectMontageAtrox, miloparris0, josettegrenier, berniceiy1, Sylviaser, gilbertstonge93, waldomarriott43, madgeroque72

Moderators: Jouni Aro: 930, Otso Palonen: 32, Tuomas Hiltunen: 5, janimakela: 0, Pyry: 1, Terho: 0, Petri: 0, Bjarne Boström: 775, Heikki Tahvanainen: 402, Jukka Asikainen: 1, moldzh08: 0, Jimmy Ni: 25, Teppo Uimonen: 21, Markus Johansson: 39, Niklas Nurminen: 0, Matti Siponen: 207, Lusetti: 0

Administrators: admin: 1