Sounds great! Let us know if there's a particular feature you need that's missing atm. Also, if you build any cool extended functionality that you would like to share/contribute back, you know where we live ;) Cheers, Radu. On 08/19/2010 10:29 PM, Daniel Stonier wrote: > > Mixing processes and platforms is exactly what we've been pushing > towards for a while. We had good motivation in that direction - our CTO > would get antsy and more than a little frustrated when the engineers > rolled out long schedules everytime he considered porting to a new > robot. So I had a robot core developing with a custom libplugin manager > (much like the nodelet manager) and a 'topic' style multithreaded > sigslots library for communications. > > The nodelets is nice though, the roslaunch features are great and it > collapses our redundancy in the data structures back to the single ros > msg style format as well as removing the need for the sigslots. I can't > think of anything we'd really need, except perhaps an easy way to > sometimes extend/customise our own nodelet managers - which I don't > think would be too hard after having a look at the nodelets code. > > Cheers, > Daniel. > > On 20 August 2010 12:02, Radu Bogdan Rusu > wrote: > > Daniel, > > Nodelets are single process (usually multi-threaded), and you're > right - the publish/subscribe intra-process > optimization was implemented to get them to use the same ROS API > mechanisms (in addition to other requests). The nice > thing about the entire design is that you can easily split your > nodelet modules into different processes and on > different machines without changing anything in your code, simply by > passing them to different nodelet managers. > > Cheers, > Radu. > > On 08/19/2010 05:55 PM, Daniel Stonier wrote: > > > > Been playing around with nodelets and have a curiosity. I understand > > that their design was driven by the need to pass objects by handles > > (pointers) across messaging rather than full copies. > > > > Recently however, one of the willow garage guys (Josh maybe? I can't > > remember) pointed me to try some tests a little while ago with node > > handles. If carefully passing and publishing a boost pointer, then a > > subscriber in the same process will simply receive that pointer and > > bypass all the tcp/ip layers. Was this implemented recently as a > result > > of the work on nodelets? If not, are there any important differences > > between this and nodelets communication mechanisms? > > > > Actually, I still like the nodelets. Being able to drop your > libraries > > containing nodelets onto the nodelet manager via roslaunch file is > > awesome. You can put together an interrupt driven control system > > designed entirely from libraries and xml without the need to even > > program any binaries in most cases. Awesome. > > > > -- > > Phone : +82-10-5400-3296 (010-5400-3296) > > Home: http://snorriheim.dnsdojo.com/ > > Yujin Robot: http://www.yujinrobot.com/ > > Embedded Control Libraries: > http://snorriheim.dnsdojo.com/redmine/wiki/ecl > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > ros-users mailing list > > ros-users@code.ros.org > > https://code.ros.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-users > > -- > | Radu Bogdan Rusu | http://rbrusu.com/ > _______________________________________________ > ros-users mailing list > ros-users@code.ros.org > https://code.ros.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-users > > > > > -- > Phone : +82-10-5400-3296 (010-5400-3296) > Home: http://snorriheim.dnsdojo.com/ > Yujin Robot: http://www.yujinrobot.com/ > Embedded Control Libraries: http://snorriheim.dnsdojo.com/redmine/wiki/ecl -- | Radu Bogdan Rusu | http://rbrusu.com/