[Gb-ccb] suggested changes to ccb library

[John Ford]

Martin Shepherd writes:
 > 
 > 
 > On Tue, 12 Aug 2003, Brian Mason wrote:
 > >...
 > > 1ms is plenty of accuracy for the scan start. My recollection however
 > > is that 1ms is the *minimum* integration time, we've not always
 > > planned to use that (cf my draft use cases), ie that that short an
 > > integration would not always make sense.
 > 
 > My recollection was that in practice 1ms integrations were going to be
 > the normal integration time, and that other times were mainly going to
 > be used for debugging.
 > 
 > Regardless, the 100ms that you mention below, is still quite a short
 > time, particularly given the 1PPS synchronization of start scans and
 > the potential delays in ethernet transmission of start-scan commands,
 > so I'm still not sure why waiting 100ms for the end of an integration
 > is such a problem.

It is not a problem.  It is swamped by other delays, and as you point
out, the start of the scan is limited to 1 second boundaries by the 1
PPS tick.  I'm pretty sure the intent of the question was that we have
no multi-second or minute long delays waiting for the darned thing to
stop before we could start another scan.