@Hugo @Dejan_Pangercic
You two are clearly looking at ROS from two completely different point of view.
If you don't need real-time and QoS, of course you will not have any reason to move to ROS2.
In the particular case of __lifecycle management__ (point 3) ), I personally believe that without it very awful code is inevitable.
But again, if you are interested in the proof-of-concept, who cares?
This is not a a discussion about ROS2 vs ROS1 and if it was, it would be clearly "ROS1 is sufficient for academic and hobbyists use, ROS2 is trying to solve multiple __important__ issues that many industries are very concerned about".
About point 5), people that __do need__ real-time requirements are (or must be) aware about the problem of priority inversion; the operative system itself helps avoiding it.
As far as i know, message passing is one of the best design patterns to avoid dead-locks.
Furthermore, real-time applications are __multi-threaded__ and __single process__, not single thread as you mentioned.
---
[Visit Topic](
https://discourse.ros.org/t/discussion-on-ros-to-ros2-transition-plan/6155/81) 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)