It seems kinda odd to introduce another parameter for whether or not to
retry. Seems to me like retrying two or 3 times if the openCamera call fails
the first time would be desirable in all cases (as long as certain parameter
combinations don't actually damage the hardware). I'm just not sure what
reason we would have for not trying again if the first try fails...
- Eric
On Mon, Jul 12, 2010 at 3:12 PM, Kim Houck <
kim_houck@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Dynamic Reconfigure would help, as it would eliminate the need to
> shutdown nodes and/or rerun the launch file or rosrun command, but it
> still would add an extra step on startup to make sure the cameras
> started correctly. But then again, it would be less likely to cause
> problems with other camera hardware for an issue that sounds like it is
> relatively obscure(although it sounds like odd behavior from 1394
> cameras is not unheard of).
>
> On 07/12/2010 09:19 AM, Jack O'Quin wrote:
> >> On Sat, Jul 10, 2010 at 11:32 PM, Kim Houck<kim_houck@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
> >>
> >>> I'm not sure if this constitutes a bug/change request for camera1394,
> >>> since it may be limited to a very small subset of hardware and I'm not
> >>> sure if fixing this would cause problems for other camera hardware.
> >>>
> > Would the dynamic reconfigure GUI be useful for this?
> >
> > I believe we could easily add a "reopen" parameter that would attempt
> > to open the device again using the same parameters. That should not
> > hurt with other cameras.
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> ros-users mailing list
> ros-users@code.ros.org
> https://code.ros.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-users
>
(text/plain)