What would be the approach to the use case that Shaun discussed?

Would there be separate nodes for filtering each ROS message?
On Nov 13, 2012 8:03 AM, "Lorenz Mösenlechner" <moesenle@in.tum.de> wrote:

> +1 Brian
>
> On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 5:01 PM, Brian Gerkey <gerkey@osrfoundation.org>
> wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 7:45 AM, Advait Jain <advaitjain@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >> I agree with Shaun.
> >>
> >> My personal preference is for the message name to reflect the message
> data
> >> type as opposed to what the message is used for.
> >>
> >> The topic name can then tell us whether the message is being used for
> >> humidity or pressure.
> >
> > While that approach can make it easier to develop certain tools, it
> > runs contrary to what we've been trying to do with standard message
> > formats.  The message definition tells you as much about the semantics
> > of the data as it does about the syntax.  I think that we're better
> > off using semantically typed messages wherever possible.
> >
> >     brian.
> > _______________________________________________
> > ros-users mailing list
> > ros-users@code.ros.org
> > https://code.ros.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-users
>
>
>
> --
> Lorenz Mösenlechner            | moesenle@in.tum.de
> Technische Universität München | Karlstraße 45
> 80335 München                  | Germany
> http://ias.cs.tum.edu/         | Tel: +49 (89) 289-26910
> _______________________________________________
> ros-users mailing list
> ros-users@code.ros.org
> https://code.ros.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-users
>