Re: A working document

> On Thu, 27 Dec 2001, Cezary Zielinski wrote:
>
> [...about ``component image''...]
> > The idea of component images is derived from my papers regarding MRROC++
(I
> > think you already have them). There each effector of virtual sensor had
an
> > associated process dealing with it. Other processes needed information
about
> > the states of those devices, so some information regarding that had to
be
> > transferred to them. I decided that the transferred information forms an
> > image of a device in another process, and thus effector (robot) images
and
> > virtual sensor images were formed. Component image would be a
generalisation
> > of that.
>
> Is there any difference with the data structure part of the
> component's interface? To me, both look the same: they present a view
> to the `outside world' on the internals of a component.
>

The definition of component within the OROCOS Glossary does not specify how
it is implemented, thus there is some ambiguity. If we treat a component as
something more or less equivalent to a class, then you are right - the data
structure part of the component's interface will suffice and there is no
need for the introduction of new names. However, if we treat as a component
a whole process, a component (a process) has to communicate to other
components (processes) its internal state (its image) and that has to be
organised as a certain data transfer (export/import). In that case I like to
use the term "image". The image is being transferred.

Cezary
>
> _______________________________________________
> Orocos mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://mail.mech.kuleuven.ac.be/mailman/listinfo/orocos