Re: Motion control stack

On Sun, Dec 16, 2012 at 6:38 PM, Herman Bruyninckx <
[email protected]> wrote:

> On Fri, 14 Dec 2012, Bert Willaert wrote:
>
>  Hey,
>>
>> In attachment there is a patch that proposes some changes to the
>> motion_control stack. The
>> changes are:
>>
>> 1) namespace for all libraries is now MotionControl (for naxes it was
>> motion_control)
>>
>> 2) startHook of CartesianImpedanceController: same functionality but more
>> readable
>>
>> 3) both nAxes and Cartesian Generators now have an "events" port. While
>> moving an
>> "e_"+name+"_moving" event is sent continuously and when the motion is
>> finished an
>> "e_"+name+"_move_finished" event is sent once. This last change has been
>> verified only by using
>> the moveTo operation, but I assume it only affects that operation.
>>
>
> I am against the use of an event that is sent out continuously! Events
> should be, well..., _events_, that is things that "happen" once in a while.
>

True. I could change this to an "e_"+name+"_move_started" event that is
send once. Is that more desirable?


>
> But your _intention_ is very good: while a motion is going in, there should
> be a continuous "Quality of Service" data flow going on, which has the
> information that you want to put in the "e_"+name+"_moving" event, and even
> more.
>

Having the current implementation in mind, what can this QoS be?


>
> The name ""e_"+name+"_move_finished" is also not so good: the event should
> indicate the _condition_ that caused the motion to stop, because there can
> be many such causes.


Related to the question above: as far as I understand, there is at this
moment only one condition that stops the motion, i.e. when the
motion_profile has ended.
Also, I see there is a pause() command, but there seems to be no way to
restart the motion without doing a reset. Is that correct?



>
>  Please neglect the patch I send one/two weeks ago.
>>
>> Bert
>>
>
> Herman
>
>
>
>>
>>       On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 9:14 AM, Bert Willaert <
>> [email protected].**be <[email protected]>>
>>       wrote:
>>             In the meantime, i have some minor extra changes. I ' ll send
>> a new
>>             patch later today.
>>
>>             bert
>>
>>             On Thursday, December 13, 2012, Peter Soetens <
>> [email protected]>
>>             wrote:
>>             > On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 1:54 PM, Bert Willaert
>>             > <[email protected].**be<[email protected]>>
>> wrote:
>>             >> Hi,
>>             >>
>>             >> I noticed that the event port from the nAxisGenerator is
>> actually not
>>             >> implemented. In attachment you can find a patch with an
>>             implementation for
>>             >> the port. The events I added are:
>>             >>
>>             >> configured_event, moving_event and move_finished_event.
>>             >>
>>             >> Especially the last one was what I needed.
>>             >
>>             > Thanks for the improvement. Who's picking up this patch and
>> merging it
>>             in ?
>>             >
>>             > Peter
>>             >
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
> --
>   KU Leuven, Mechanical Engineering, Robotics Research Group
>     <http://people.mech.kuleuven.**be/~bruyninc<http://people.mech.kuleuven.be/%7Ebruyninc>>
> Tel: +32 16 328056
>   Vice-President Research euRobotics <http://www.eu-robotics.net>
>   Open RObot COntrol Software <http://www.orocos.org>
>   Associate Editor JOSER <http://www.joser.org>, IJRR <http://www.ijrr.org
> >
>

-- 
Orocos-Dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.mech.kuleuven.be/mailman/listinfo/orocos-dev