Hi Ingo,
On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 02:06:47PM +0100, Ingo Lütkebohle wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 6:11 AM, Herman Bruyninckx
> <Herman.Bruyninckx@mech.kuleuven.be> wrote:
> > Yes: <http://people.mech.kuleuven.be/~mklotzbucher/rfsm/README.html>.
...
> > But again, I
> > hope that ROS is not going to suffer from the Not Invented Here syndrom,
> > and work towards being integratable with other frameworks.
>
> Totally agreed here.
>
> However, as mentioned in my earlier mail, I think that ROS's
> actionlib, and similar approaches, already go a long way towards
> making the components easier to integrate. I know that you criticized
> actionlib's state-machine, and I certainly agree with some of those
> points, but I mention it more in the spirit of having a common
> state-machine for communicating action progress.
>
> From what I read about rFSM, it does not seem to integrate with
> actionlib, or other, similar approaches. Is that by design or by
> accident?
Neither, we _do_ have generic task-level FSM, for instance in
iTaSC. Integration with actionlib using roslua would be trivial but
then we don't use ROS much for this purpose...
Best regards
Markus
(text/plain)