[ros-users] ros-users Digest, Vol 48, Issue 9

Christian Schlegel schlegel at hs-ulm.de
Tue Feb 18 11:43:12 UTC 2014


be careful: "ROS services" is not the sane as "service-oriented" as in the meaning of SOA (I mean communication patterns in the line of SOA and *not* in the sense of ROS services)

Christian

---
Prof. Dr. Christian Schlegel
Prodekan, Studiendekan Master IS
Fakultät Informatik
Hochschule Ulm

Tel.: 0731 / 50-28242

http://www.hs-ulm.de/schlegel
http://www.zafh-servicerobotik.de/
http://www.youtube.com/user/roboticsathsulm
http://smart-robotics.sourceforge.net/
http://www.joser.org/

Am 18.02.2014 um 12:37 schrieb "Kelsey Hawkins" <kphawkins at gmail.com<mailto:kphawkins at gmail.com>>:


but in my personal opinion, services are a bad idea anyway, and what we really want is something more like (though not necessarily exactly the same) what actionlib offers

I wholeheartedly agree and might go so far as to call it an antipattern.  I feel it overly simplifies synchronous communication, making many nodes more fragile.  I'd be happy to see something like actionlib replace services entirely.

-Kelsey

On Feb 18, 2014 3:42 AM, "Ingo Lütkebohle" <iluetkeb at gmail.com<mailto:iluetkeb at gmail.com>> wrote:
On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 2:12 AM, Brian Gerkey <gerkey at osrfoundation.org<mailto:gerkey at osrfoundation.org>> wrote:
On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 9:06 AM, Wrede, Sebastian
<swrede at techfak.uni-bielefeld.de<mailto:swrede at techfak.uni-bielefeld.de>> wrote:
>  * How will services / RPC be implemented with DDS? Is there already an
> accepted standard protocol for doing RPC over DDS?

My understanding is: (i) the current DDS spec doesn't include what we
call services; (ii) there's an extension for services that is
currently under consideration and may make its way into a future
revision of the spec; and (iii) some current implementations have
vendor-specific extensions for services.

I know that many people feel otherwise, but in my personal opinion, services are a bad idea anyway, and what we really want is something more like (though not necessarily exactly the same) what actionlib offers. That is, something which *explicitly* acknowledges that there are always packets/messages underneath, that there is asynchronicity, and that there may be impossibility to act *in the protocol*.

Just saying ;-)

cheers

--
Ingo Lütkebohle, Dr.-Ing.
Machine Learning and Robotics Lab, IPVS, Universität Stuttgart
http://www.ipvs.uni-stuttgart.de/abteilungen/mlr/abteilung/mitarbeiter/Ingo.Luetkebohle
+49-711-685-88350<tel:%2B49-711-685-88350>

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

_______________________________________________
ros-users mailing list
ros-users at lists.ros.org<mailto:ros-users at lists.ros.org>
http://lists.ros.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-users

_______________________________________________
ros-users mailing list
ros-users at lists.ros.org<mailto:ros-users at lists.ros.org>
http://lists.ros.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-users
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ros.org/pipermail/ros-users/attachments/20140218/f5b2a3db/attachment.html>


More information about the ros-users mailing list