Jon Binney expressed the same opinion as you guys in the tickets and provided a sample script that would go through and update all instances in a code base:

https://github.com/ros/ros_comm/issues/346#issuecomment-36440175

In principle I agree with with tick-tock'ing the api through indigo and j-turtle, but I am concerned about the maintenance burden it might inflict on us (issues and Q&A questions), but as long as we have a clear document to point people at with the rational, ways to fix it, and maybe something like the script Jon made I think we can handle it.


On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 3:20 AM, Paul Mathieu <paul.mathieu@pal-robotics.com> wrote:
Right now, it appears that the default setting is easily broken for a minority of use cases and non-intuitive to debug. And that would be good to amend. Better to have it working everywhere and optimisable for power use cases. 

Adding some notes on the wiki probably won't do much to notify existing users - typically copy/pasting from nearby code what I do.

So back to my earlier question - is setting a queue size expensive in the python implementation? If there isn't a technical weakness there, then I'm all for a) warnings and a migration point sometime in the future - it wouldn't be very costly to mechanically search and destroy all rospy.Publisher instances in a ros workspace. 

I agree with Daniel. Changing the default will break existing code, but if the default is undesirable in a non-negligible amount of cases, then it should be changed.
I would be in favor for a warning in Indigo, and a change of behavior in J-turtle.

Paul 

_______________________________________________
ros-users mailing list
ros-users@lists.ros.org
http://lists.ros.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-users




--
William Woodall
ROS Development Team
william@osrfoundation.org
http://williamjwoodall.com/