changes to support rcl refactor #48
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
|
Note to myself, need to check all uses of functions which had their default arguments dropped. |
|
Should services and clients also have the service name in the struct (similar to adding the topic name to subscribers and publishers)? |
|
Yes, but my |
|
Ok, sounds fine with me. On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 3:42 PM, William Woodall notifications@github.com
|
wjwwood
force-pushed
the
rcl_refactor
branch
from
2ef77a0
to
b2bb00b
Compare
|
+1 |
1 similar comment
|
+1 |
wjwwood
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Dec 18, 2015
changes to support rcl refactor
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
While testing, I realized that we need to change some things in the
rmwAPI to support the rcl library changes. The two biggest changes are to make the API actually C and not C++, and to expose things like the node name and topic names through the rmw API. Currently I plan to do the latter by putting these fields directly in the rmw struct rather than adding getter and setter functions to the rmw API and making it larger.This pr is still a work in progress as I discover things in testing. I'll also be opening pr's against all of the current rmw implementations to bring them up to speed, but I am testing locally with opensplice for the time being.
Later, but probably not on the first pass, I think we should make the rmw interface more like the rcl interface in a few ways, for example exposing an allocator option in some places, using a wait set struct, and thorough documentation which considers thread-safety, memory allocation, complex usage, etc...
Connects to ros2/rcl#5