@Hugo @Dejan_Pangercic You two are clearly looking at ROS from two completely different point of view. If you don't need real-time and QoS, of course you will not have any reason to move to ROS2. In the particular case of __lifecycle management__ (point 3) ), I personally believe that without it very awful code is inevitable. But again, if you are interested in the proof-of-concept, who cares? This is not a a discussion about ROS2 vs ROS1 and if it was, it would be clearly "ROS1 is sufficient for academic and hobbyists use, ROS2 is trying to solve multiple __important__ issues that many industries are very concerned about". About point 5), people that __do need__ real-time requirements are (or must be) aware about the problem of priority inversion; the operative system itself helps avoiding it. As far as i know, message passing is one of the best design patterns to avoid dead-locks. Furthermore, real-time applications are __multi-threaded__ and __single process__, not single thread as you mentioned. --- [Visit Topic](https://discourse.ros.org/t/discussion-on-ros-to-ros2-transition-plan/6155/81) or reply to this email to respond. If you do not want to receive messages from ros-users please use the unsubscribe link below. If you use the one above, you will stop all of ros-users from receiving updates. ______________________________________________________________________________ ros-users mailing list ros-users@lists.ros.org http://lists.ros.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-users Unsubscribe: