> > but in my personal opinion, services are a bad idea anyway, and what we > really want is something more like (though not necessarily exactly the > same) what actionlib offers > I wholeheartedly agree and might go so far as to call it an antipattern. I feel it overly simplifies synchronous communication, making many nodes more fragile. I'd be happy to see something like actionlib replace services entirely. -Kelsey On Feb 18, 2014 3:42 AM, "Ingo Lütkebohle" wrote: > On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 2:12 AM, Brian Gerkey wrote: > >> On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 9:06 AM, Wrede, Sebastian >> wrote: >> > * How will services / RPC be implemented with DDS? Is there already an >> > accepted standard protocol for doing RPC over DDS? >> >> My understanding is: (i) the current DDS spec doesn't include what we >> call services; (ii) there's an extension for services that is >> currently under consideration and may make its way into a future >> revision of the spec; and (iii) some current implementations have >> vendor-specific extensions for services. >> > > I know that many people feel otherwise, but in my personal opinion, > services are a bad idea anyway, and what we really want is something more > like (though not necessarily exactly the same) what actionlib offers. That > is, something which *explicitly* acknowledges that there are always > packets/messages underneath, that there is asynchronicity, and that there > may be impossibility to act *in the protocol*. > > Just saying ;-) > > cheers > > -- > Ingo Lütkebohle, Dr.-Ing. > Machine Learning and Robotics Lab, IPVS, Universität Stuttgart > > http://www.ipvs.uni-stuttgart.de/abteilungen/mlr/abteilung/mitarbeiter/Ingo.Luetkebohle > +49-711-685-88350 > > PGP Fingerprint 3187 4DEC 47E6 1B1E 6F4F 57D4 CD90 C164 34AD CE5B > > _______________________________________________ > ros-users mailing list > ros-users@lists.ros.org > http://lists.ros.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-users > >