This archive contains answers to questions sent to Unidata support through mid-2025. Note that the archive is no longer being updated. We provide the archive for reference; many of the answers presented here remain technically correct, even if somewhat outdated. For the most up-to-date information on the use of NSF Unidata software and data services, please consult the Software Documentation first.
Stonie, >Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2003 16:34:05 +0000 >From: "Stonie R. Cooper" <address@hidden> >To: Steve Chiswell <address@hidden> >Subject: LDM 6.0.2. The above message contained the following: > Steve, et al, > > We have migrated our plugin to 6.0.2; I have 6.0.2 running end to end and > have > noticed the following: > > - "nicer" logging; > - less CPU impact; > - less latency. That's the idea. > >From a developer standpoint, it was much easier to migrate our plugin code > into the src tree now that you use templates for virtually everything for > make. Excuse me. What are "templates ... for make"? Are you referring to the use of "include"s in the makefiles and the two, top-level makefiles "macros.make" and "rules.make"? > Of course, this could be a trait of beta . . . but I like it. Kudos > to the team. Thanks. The use of the "include" directive is a bit risky in that there could be a native make(1) utility that doesn't support it -- but so far so good. > As soon as I hear from you on how would like us to assign feedtypes (or just > let us know to do what we are currently doing - i.e. following the feedtype > doc on the LDM webpage), we'll get our academic customers on 6.0.2. Ah feedtypes! We're thinking about using the highest-order bit to designate a flat feedtype space. Bit manipulation wouldn't be allowed but it would give us another 2^31 feedtypes. Perhaps some of that range could be reserved for use by the user. Unfortunately, this will mean fairly substantial modifications to the code, which will take a while. Regards, Steve Emmerson