From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Received: by 10.182.135.193 with SMTP id pu1mr17892182obb.3.1460828886305; Sat, 16 Apr 2016 10:48:06 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.157.35.195 with SMTP id t61mr287263otb.16.1460828886265; Sat, 16 Apr 2016 10:48:06 -0700 (PDT) Path: eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!mx02.eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!news.glorb.com!g8no2368501igr.0!news-out.google.com!u9ni316igk.0!nntp.google.com!g8no2368500igr.0!postnews.google.com!glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: Sat, 16 Apr 2016 10:48:05 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com; posting-host=79.80.249.98; posting-account=O3LyFwoAAACc1uh60ZcOUmAGdDmGsEcV NNTP-Posting-Host: 79.80.249.98 References: <6d3b7ac5-8fc6-406c-8aac-947d25a78249@googlegroups.com> User-Agent: G2/1.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: <3a88453a-ffaf-45d7-b6bc-39c161226638@googlegroups.com> Subject: Re: Simple Components 4.12 with MQTT implementation released From: slos Injection-Date: Sat, 16 Apr 2016 17:48:06 +0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Xref: news.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:30156 Date: 2016-04-16T10:48:05-07:00 List-Id: Le samedi 16 avril 2016 10:12:47 UTC+2, Dmitry A. Kazakov a =E9crit=A0: > On 2016-04-16 00:18, slos wrote: > > Le vendredi 15 avril 2016 18:31:00 UTC+2, Dmitry A. Kazakov a =E9crit : > >> On 2016-04-15 17:47, slos wrote: > >> > >>>> But when the middleware is OPC or MQTT you cannot not put it > >>>> into a device and expect that working. > >>> Yes you can : > >>> http://www.hilscher.com/fileadmin/cms_upload/en-US/Resources/pdf/netI= C-IOT_Datasheet_10-2015_EN.pdf > >> > >> It is not a device, it a SBC with an OPC stack in it. We have that too= , > >> an ARM board with OPC UA server, no problem whatsoever. Anybody can ha= ve it. > > You have read the data sheet too fast. May be you should consider to re= ad it again. > > Not only you have OPC UA or MQTT but also on the same medium EtherCAT, = Ethernet/IP or PROFINET. >=20 > Of course I read it. It is exactly what all other vendors do, including= =20 > the firm where I work. Neither the concept nor the hardware is any new.= =20 > For example, how is it different from an antique SPS equipped by an OPC= =20 > server and PROFINET? >=20 > The idea of middleware, predating by decades the "newly discovered" idea= =20 > of IoT is different. It is getting rid of the gateways like yours: >=20 > Application <--OPC--> Hilscher <--PROFINET--> ADC terminal Well, this is not correct. The netIoT is a gateway that gives OEM connectivity : Analog | |PROFINET-------|SPS Control Digital |--netIoT--|Ethernet/IP----|OPC----|Cloud Computed | |EtherCAT-------|MQTT---|Applications Com | Our customer WANTS this kind of connectivity because they SELL their hardwa= re to SPS users who want to get the supposed benefits of Industry 4.0 or II= oT. They may exchange their SPS for your middleware if you go visit them. >=20 > to be replaced with: >=20 > Application <--DDL--> ADC terminal >=20 > The ADC terminal is a device or "thing" in the IoT Newspeak. The idea is= =20 > to talk right to the thing. No gateways, just interconnected things. If no gateway is used the ADC has to implement the protocol, whatever it is= . >=20 > Now, the point I am making is that neither OPC nor MQTT is suitable to=20 > serve as the DDL (data-distribution layer) for a middleware stretching=20 > from application to the automation devices. Both were originated under=20 > impression of desktop office applications rather than real-life process= =20 > control. I agree. That's why they are used on the upper levels. For process control, real time protocols are used. And when you only need to collect data like temperature from large networks= protocols like MQTT have some advantages. >=20 > > So real time data is exchanged via real time protocols and relevant > > data for cloud application is exchanged with OPC UA or MQTT. >=20 > q.e.d. >=20 > >> Now try to sample 8 10kHz channels and subscribe to them through OPC, > >> get the data to a PC and log them with time stamps and no losses. > > OPC was never designed with this kind of needs in mind. >=20 > Ergo, unsuitable for automation and control. Again, I have already agreed on that and by the way never said the contrary= . >=20 > >> How does EtherCAT operate with other protocols? > > You could use Ethernet over EtherCAT. >=20 > Tunneling is not "operating with". You need a gateway, like Hilscher=20 > box, to bridge OPC and EtherCAT. Hence, OPC and EtherCAT are not=20 > interoperable. >=20 > >>> They allow multiple vendors to propose products fitting well > >>> together and it works pretty well since years. > >> > >> Clearly, any protocol is interoperable with itself. This is not > >> interoperability, when multiple vendors can implement it, IMO it is > >> openness. > > Please could you give your definition of interoperability? >=20 > Wikipedia: "Interoperability is a property of a product or system, whose= =20 > interfaces are completely understood, to work with other products or=20 > systems, present or future, without any restricted access or implementati= on" This is exactly what open protocols standards are created for. >=20 > >>> The middle of what ? > >> > >> A middle between an application logic and the > >> devices/actuator/sensor/data source logic. > > So Ada from hardware to application. >=20 > Are you talking about the language of API? The middleware will have API= =20 > in all languages used in the application area. Most of middlewares do. >=20 > The language of the implementation is only of the vendor's interest. For= =20 > us it will be Ada. >=20 > > Gnoga allows an Ada application to talk to the browser and provide a GU= I to the application. > > That does not make the Ada application an application running in the br= owser. >=20 > Parts of it are certainly running in the browser. No. No Ada code is compiled to be executed in the browser. Gnoga is not an Ada to JavaScript compiler. >=20 > >>> I think one of the problems of Ada community is a kind of > >>> sectarianism or elitism. > >> > >> Ada community consists of competent engineers, that shapes it this way= . > >> Is it a problem? Maybe it is, but I prefer this problem to others. >=20 > > Other communities have also competent engineers. They don't write > > their code in the Ada language but that alone does not make their > > creation a crap. >=20 > Now you are switching the topic towards quality of the software designed= =20 > in different communities. >=20 > I am not ready to pass judgment without knowing who are "they" you are=20 > talking about. Some "they" produce excellent quality software, other=20 > "they" produce exclusively garbage. >=20 > When "they" =3D all software developers in the world, then the picture is= =20 > quite grim, as expected. >=20 > > I am just a support guy interested in development. >=20 > I see, less protocols would mean less support work. Worrying about your= =20 > business? (:-)) Do not. It is a very long way to go, alas... I don't worry about my business. If I could convince you to connect your mi= ddleware to our cifX driver you would be able to talk to most devices of th= e automation field. Your middleware could interest more people since being more capable. And Hilscher would sell more boards. Not me. ;-) When you need some training or support I will be glad to provide it to you. Let's be friends, no enemy. >=20 > --=20 > Regards, > Dmitry A. Kazakov > http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de BR, St=E9phane