Paul_Booth
My feedback
-
162 votes
AdminKevin Geneva
(Admin, OSIsoft)
responded
Thank you all for your valuable feedback. While we appreciate the interest the community has for this suggestion, we have decided to not pursue this item for now in favor of other high priority work. We realize that this is a popular idea, and we will continue to evaluate its impact for our customers and partners. We will update this idea’s status if we begin to work on this.
For non-Windows environments, our current suggestion is to use the PI Web API for programmatic PI Server access.An error occurred while saving the comment Paul_Booth
supported this idea
·
-
181 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Paul_Booth
commented
How on earth was losing connector level failover ever allowed to go forward? My guess: the developers found it too difficult so persuaded those who should know better that it wasn't needed.
Paul_Booth
supported this idea
·
-
2 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Paul_Booth
commented
Having seen how the current configuration seems to work, it would look like it could be a rewrite.
If a JSON format text file were used as the base, then any text editor could be used. Possibly like the UFL interface where the ICU reads in an INI file, then provides guidance as how to proceed. This could be a utility tool that reads in a JSON text, allows further editing, then imports into AF, or just leaves the file to be read by the channel when it starts up. Maybe similar to StringBuilder in the current client? That allows substitution parameters wherever.
Paul_Booth
supported this idea
·
-
110 votes7 comments · Customer Portal & PI Square » Customer Portal Overall · Flag idea as inappropriate… · Admin →
An error occurred while saving the comment Paul_Booth
commented
Absolutely dreadful retrograde move. A cynic might think OSISoft is deliberately setting out to make life hard for firms who support multiple customers so as to get the support work itself.
Paul_Booth
supported this idea
·
-
178 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Paul_Booth
commented
Again, we are left with a sub-standard visualization tool. Whatever were you thinking when you didn't bother to include UOM selection? These basic things, things ProcessBook can do with ease, should have been put in as a matter of course - we shouldn't have to be begging for basics. Instead we have, as commented, a requirement to duplicate attributes just to do basic unit adjustments, breaking our naming conventions and trouncing your own AF development best practices.
Paul_Booth
supported this idea
·
-
46 votesPaul_Booth
supported this idea
·
-
141 votesPaul_Booth
supported this idea
·
-
102 votesPaul_Booth
supported this idea
·
-
134 votesPaul_Booth
supported this idea
·
-
32 votesPaul_Booth
supported this idea
·
An error occurred while saving the comment Paul_Booth
commented
This is a requirement that I, and a number of other users, have identified as being very useful.
It's sad to see so much legacy work being tossed aside, sacrificed to the altar of "do it on the web". It is miles away from OSIsoft's original ethos which was to facilitate communication rather than prescribe how it should be done. For Microsoft systems WebAPI is a tedious substitute.