Nice !
Yes, I think it would be better to use an other channel for some things we would discuss. I have sent you an email.
I have some comments on your diagram :
- Does `urcl` refers to a language-specific client lib ? or to `rcl`, adapted to microcontollers ?
- In the first case, I would say that it would be nice to use and complete [rclc](
https://github.com/ros2/rclc)
- In the second case, I would say that using `rcl` is better, even if the use of malloc is not the best choice for microcontollers, it is quite well designed, and the most important is that `rcl` would be the glue between normal ROS2 and ROS2 for microcontrollers.
- Why defining a `urmw` interface ? What would be different from `rmw` ?
- The problem with RTOS abstraction is that, beside well known standards (POSIX, socket, libc, ...), there is no library that manage an application layer protocol (MQTT, HTTP, CoAP, etc..) that is ported to several RTOS : each RTOS has it's specific solution/interface.
---
[Visit Topic](
https://discourse.ros.org/t/ros2-on-microcontrollers-with-riot/1293/19) or reply to this email to respond.
If you do not want to receive messages from ros-users please use the unsubscribe link below. If you use the one above, you will stop all of ros-users from receiving updates.
______________________________________________________________________________
ros-users mailing list
ros-users@lists.ros.org
http://lists.ros.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-users
Unsubscribe: <
http://lists.ros.org/mailman//options/ros-users>
(text/plain)