Date 1 - 2 of 2
[IIDM] Regulations modelization
|1 - 2 of 2|
It makes sense to me but I am not sure everything is ready on extension side to support this kind of “critical” extension.
I am thinking in particular about the lack of adder support with extensions, the lack of API/impl decoupling.
Sure it is already the case today, adding extension data is not as clear as base data for the previous reason
(like gen.addExtension(MyExt.class, new MyExt(gen, … lots of param …), but I think before moving base data to extension we should rework on extension modelling in IIDM API.
We could get inspiration on how builder have been added in AFS keeping a good API/impl design.
De : powsybl-tsc@... [mailto:powsybl-tsc@...]
De la part de RALAMBOTIANA Miora via Lists.Lfenergy.Org
Eventually, we would also change existing regulation attributes to model them as extensions as well.
"Ce message est destiné exclusivement aux personnes ou entités auxquelles il est adressé et peut contenir des informations privilégiées ou confidentielles. Si vous avez reçu ce document par erreur, merci de nous l'indiquer par retour, de ne pas le transmettre et de procéder à sa destruction.
This message is solely intended for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged or confidential. If you have received this communication by error, please notify us immediately by electronic mail, do not disclose it and delete the original message."
We were thinking yesterday with Mathieu of modeling new regulation (shunt's regulation particularly) as extensions rather than attributes (by boolean attribute regulating, double attribute voltageSetpoint, etc.) from now on.
The pros were the following:
What do you think? Do you agree?
|1 - 2 of 2|