I agree that yours is probably the best bet for us to push forward with.
If you could formally release a version, I'd be happy to help add to it.
1) Should we split the interface and parser/writer?
>
I like the way you have kept them together, it's easier to read.
2) Which name should we unite under?
The C++ equivalent to this package is named urdf_parser. Realistically,
it would make sense if eventually we could integrate it into this official
package. Until then, I think we should keep with a similar name.
urdf_parser_py might make sense but it doesn't really matter to me. What
would be nice for me is if we could have a stack (like my
robot_model_python) in a repository we could all maintain where my KDL
parser and other similar packages could reside.
3) I think that we might want to merge into my package, but would be open
> to other suggestions. Does that sound good?
>
Sounds good to me. It might also be nice to incorporate Thomas' string
pretty printing. I'd also personally make a few changes to the URDF class
you have if you think they're reasonable. First, make the *parse* and *load
* methods static so you can load the URDF object in one line. Secondly,
make those two more intuitive by renaming them *parse_xml_string* and *
load_xml_file* or something similar. Not making these changes isn't a
game-killer though.
-Kelsey
On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 12:44 PM, David Lu!! <
davidlu@wustl.edu> wrote:
> I've gone through all three of our packages, and I believe that mine has
> the most features (please correct me if I'm wrong, I'm not just trying to
> promote my own package). Kelsey's package has the KDL components which
> would be useful to integrate, as well as using ROS geometry messages in the
> lower levels. Thomas's package has the nice interface/parse split, as well
> as some useful constants. Both have some error checking and the ability to
> read rosparams. My has the writing component and I think the fullest set of
> supported tags.
>
> Open questions:
> 1) Should we split the interface and parser/writer?
> 2) Which name should we unite under?
> 3) I think that we might want to merge into my package, but would be open
> to other suggestions. Does that sound good?
>
> -David
>
> On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 3:06 PM, Kelsey Hawkins <kphawkins@gatech.edu>wrote:
>
>> I would also like to chime in and say I have partially implemented a URDF
>> parser in Python which you can find here:
>> http://www.ros.org/wiki/urdf_parser_python I'm not sure if it is
>> extensive as David's since there are several sections like the geometry
>> components which haven't been fully implemented. I have been successfully
>> using this package for several months now in conjunction with the KDL
>> parser you can find in the same stack. If either of you decide to
>> officially release your packages, I'd be happy to get my KDL parser working
>> with the released version.
>>
>> -Kelsey Hawkins
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> ros-users mailing list
>> ros-users@code.ros.org
>> https://code.ros.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-users
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> ros-users mailing list
> ros-users@code.ros.org
> https://code.ros.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-users
>
>
(text/plain)