[ros-users] [Ros-developers] Fwd: Review for Dynamic Reconfigure Groups

[Ingo Lütkebohle]

I second this. The experience with rosbag also shows that such a
second serialization format is hard to get rid of (rosbag has a
different format in the header than in the messages...).

cheers,

On Sat, Nov 12, 2011 at 7:40 PM, Thibault Kruse <kruset at in.tum.de> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> a bit late maybe to mention this, but I find it strange that
> dynamic_reconfigure
> would invent its own type system. Why not build on the
> ROS msg type system and work it from there? That would reduce
> the duplicate code (binding generation) and allow for easier integration
> with other
> programming languages. It does not even need to support the whole
> range of ros msg possibilities for that to start with.
>
> "Grouping parameters" sounds very much like building a ROS message structure
> to me.
>
> I understand that you cannot define variable domains in ros msg definitions,
> but why should a dynamic reconfigure file not start by loading a message
> struct from a ros msg definition, and extend this to a configuration?
>
> If you look at the example on using dynamic reconfigure merged with a
> service:
> http://ibotics.ucsd.edu/trac/stingray/wiki/ROSNodeTutorialC%2B%2B
>  this bit seems like redundant code:
>
> void  NodeExample::messageCallback(const
>  node_example::node_example_data::ConstPtr&msg)
> {
>  message_=  msg->message;
>  a_=  msg->a;
>  b_=  msg->b;
> ...
> }  // end publishCallback()
> void
>  NodeExample::configCallback(node_example::node_example_paramsConfig&config,
>  uint32_t level)
> {
>  // Set class variables to new values. They should match what is input at
> the dynamic reconfigure GUI.
>  message_=  config.message.c_str();
>  a_=  config.a;
>  b_=  config.b;
> }  // end configCallback()
>
> If dynamic reconfigure was based on ros msg, one callback would do for both.
> That in itself is not a huge benefit to anyone maybe, it just would seem
> more
> reasonable to me than to have two parallel type systems.
>
>
> In the same way, i would have been happy to see dynamic_reconfigure cfg
> files being yaml files rather than python, declaring structures only.
> That could one day even lead to ROS msg definitions which include more
> semantics like minimum, maximum, default, docstring. Is there a good
> reason why this cannot or should not be done?
>
> cheers,
>  Thibault
>
>
>
> On 01/-10/-28163 08:59 PM, Ken Conley wrote:
>>
>> Forwarding to ros-developers as well
>>
>>
>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>> From: Eitan Marder-Eppstein<eitan at willowgarage.com>
>> Date: Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 8:09 AM
>> Subject: Review for Dynamic Reconfigure Groups
>> To: ros-review at lists.willowgarage.com
>> Cc: Ze'ev Klapow<klapow at willowgarage.com>, Ken
>> Conley<kwc at willowgarage.com>
>>
>>
>> Hey all,
>> Ze'ev Klapow spent some time last week implementing a groups feature
>> for dynamic reconfigure. The feature enables you to do things like
>> show and hide groups of parameters based on what other parameters have
>> been set, view parameters for a node by group and expand or collapse
>> them in the client, and access parameters in both C++ and Python in a
>> consistent manner using '.' syntax. The feature is, I think, super
>> useful, but to land in E-Turtle it needs a review. We'd love feedback
>> from anyone using dynamic_reconfigure who wants to try out this
>> feature.
>> The list of changes lives here, along with a section for feedback:
>> http://www.ros.org/wiki/dynamic_reconfigure/Reviews/7-1-11_groups
>> And updated tutorials live here:
>> http://www.ros.org/wiki/Ze%27ev%20Klapow/dynamic
>> And the code can be found here:
>> https://kforge.ros.org/project/common/services/dynamicreconfig/
>> Thanks much, and hope all is well,
>> Eitan
>> _______________________________________________
>> ros-developers mailing list
>> ros-developers at code.ros.org
>> https://code.ros.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-developers
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> ros-users mailing list
> ros-users at code.ros.org
> https://code.ros.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-users
>



-- 
Ingo Lütkebohle
Bielefeld University
http://www.techfak.uni-bielefeld.de/~iluetkeb/

PGP Fingerprint 3187 4DEC 47E6 1B1E 6F4F  57D4 CD90 C164 34AD CE5B