I agree with Jack on Cedric's work. Nice to know that it is doable!
I'm going to move my thoughts over to the ROS-NG list; I think a fair
number of people are already there, so it shouldn't be a problem.
Thanks,
Cem Karan
>------------------------------
>
>Message: 2
>Date: Sun, 27 May 2012 08:04:25 -0500
>From: "Jack O'Quin" <jack.oquin@gmail.com>
>To: User discussions <ros-users@code.ros.org>
>Subject: Re: [ros-users] roscpp with transport plugins
>Message-ID:
> <CAB6SgyWAZd1=QmRFyPQb3FieA69xAj3XQyN8Bw_xL=HFJh6Zfw@mail.gmail.com>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
>On Sun, May 27, 2012 at 7:15 AM, Cedric Pradalier
><cedric.pradalier@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> The conclusion is that, at least in C++, there is no particular
>> problem to make the transport layer more open.
>> I'm happy to send the diff for review if there is an interest. This is
>> not production code, but I don't think what I changed has the
>> potential to be disruptive. It's mostly reorganising some bits and
>> pieces into functions and classes.
>
>That's good news.
>
>I suspect the difficult problem will be understanding and
>characterizing various clients' implicit assumptions about bandwidth,
>latency, reliability, quality of service, etc.
>
>We need to understand what kinds of transport protocols will satisfy
>which specific robotics applications.
(text/plain)