Hi Gonzalo,
about a year ago I had similar ideas. I thought about having a separate
Param server ROS node which would receive and serve params as ROS
messages. This would allow easily using the same toolset for params as
for other messages. E.g. recording param changes with rosbag, or setting
a param using interactive markers in rviz.
This would also mean easy adoption for non-C++ languages which already
deal with ROS messages.
The API should allow to create a UI similar to the one for
dynamic_reconfigure, meaning nodes should advertise the parameters they
dynamically consume, with type and range information.
The main technical problem I had with that approach was creating a ROS
message in C++ based on command-line parameters, as I had no way to
figure out the required datatype of single parameters of ROS messages. I
think I had a draft REP ready, I'll send it to you if I can still find it.
There were other subtle problems to consider, such as the lifecycle of
params. E.g. does a parameter live and die with the paramserver node, or
does it live and die with its "parent" node, or are combinations of both
possible? Similarly how to have protected namespaces for the dynamic
params of each node on the paramserver node, and whether to allow nodes
to set (each other's) params on the parameter server.
When I talked to Ken about the larger concept, he said pretty much what
he says now, and that a Redis based solution would offer more features
with less development/maintenance effort. And maintenance effort is IMO
the largest challenge currently to the ROS ecosystem.
Also at the time I was under the (false) impression that ROS2.0 was
something to happen soon and would change everything, so I did not
continue to work on that.
Right now I am not sure whether it is useful to mention ROS2.0 at all.
regards,
Thibault
On 17.04.2013 03:07, Gonzalo Abella wrote:
> Dear community
>
> My name is Gonzalo Abella. I am going to apply for the Google Summer
> of Code program. For those who does not know about what I am talking
> about, GSoC is a program where Google awards stipends to students who
> successfully complete a requested free and open-source software coding
> project during the summer. Here you can find more info [1]. There is a
> project which I find very interesting:
>
> "Develop new Parameter API for C++ ROS client"
> Description: ROS has a concept called parameters, which are settings
> for individual computational "nodes". Currently the built-in parameter
> system in ROS statically sets the parameters at launch time and cannot
> be changed during runtime. There is an additional system called
> Dynamic Reconfigure which allows ROS nodes to define dynamic
> parameters, but this system requires that the parameters be defined
> outside of the normal ROS parameter API and is not integrated into the
> ROS C++ client API. This task would be to redesign the built-in ROS
> parameter system for C++ into a functional prototype which combines
> the normal static parameters with the Dynamic Parameter's feature set.
> There are several features that need to be tackled for this project,
> for example: having callbacks for when parameters change, lock on
> access for the parameters (thread safety), grouping of parameters, and
> how to define the valid ranges for parameter values. The goal is a
> working prototype which can be used for ROS 2.0 work, but which could
> be back ported into ROS 1.0 if the new system can be implemented
> alongside the existing one or the changes to the existing system are
> minimal.
>
> With this description I have a pretty good idea of the goal of the
> project. I also have an initial idea of how I would do it. But because
> this is a community and it is you who are going to use the new
> Parameter Server at the end of the project, I would like to know your
> opinions in order to propose a better project (and do it if finally I
> get selected). Do you miss any feature? How would you improve the
> Parameter Server?
>
> For example, I think it could be interesting to decouple the Parameter
> Server from the ROS Master. The reason to do so is to increase its
> functionality. We could have two implementations and use the one that
> better suit for you. There is a simple by default implementation.
> Useful when you don't have many parameters. The other implementation
> could use a distributed key/value DB. It is useful when you have many
> parameters and to use the Parameter Server as a database. If the
> underlying DB is distributed, the DB would be highly scalable. What do
> you think? Does it fit in the project scope?
>
> I would appreciate any opinion/suggestion/advice/commentary. Thank you
> very much.
>
> Best regards,
> Gonzalo
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> ros-users mailing list
> ros-users@code.ros.org
> https://code.ros.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-users
(text/plain)