2010/11/16 Herman Bruyninckx <
Herman.Bruyninckx@mech.kuleuven.be>
> On Tue, 16 Nov 2010, Konrad Banachowicz wrote:
>
> - mixing the creation of a TaskContext with a specific implementation of a
>> generic interface (trajectory generation in this case) is not a good
>> practice; these three things should be separated, in order to improve
>> modular reuse.
>> - more in particular, new trajectory generation algorithms are preferably
>> submitted to Orocos/KDL as contributions, instead of "hiding" them inside
>> a ROSified node, where they are very difficult to reuse in other
>> frameworks or stand-alone applications.
>> Trajectory generation reside in ROS stack because it is intended to be as
>> much as possible compatible with trajectory generation used in ROS.
>>
>
> I have no problem with using ROS nodes to improve interoperability, but
> functional algorithms belong in component/node-independent source trees,
> for maximal reusability within whatever 'component framework'.
>
> Yes you are right but look how image processing code is developed in ROS.
It begin as independent nodes/packages and over time move into OpenCV.
>
> - I do not see much Configuration options, while this subject of
>> trajectory
>> generation, servoing etc lends itself extremely well to fine tuning and
>> customization via setting of configuration properties.
>> I have not seen any parameters that can by configured in trajectory
>> generation algorithm which i implemented.
>>
>
> Strange. Typically, I expect parameters such as maximum speeds, minimal
> time steps, required tolerance, etc.
>
> Yes but these parameters is specified for every trajectory point
independently through JointTrajectoryPoint message.
http://www.ros.org/doc/api/trajectory_msgs/html/msg/JointTrajectoryPoint.html
(text/plain)