Re: exception handling

You are right - low level components simply report errors. The high level
execution automaton reacts differently to different categories of errors. By
high level I mean the main() function of a thread. If this automaton would
have to deal with each error separately it would be very complex. That is
why it is reasonable to categorise errors.
Cezary

----- Original Message -----
From: "Herman Bruyninckx" <[email protected]>
To: <unlisted-recipients:>; <no To-header on input>
Cc: "Open RObot COntrol Software" <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, March 06, 2002 4:36 PM
Subject: Re: [Orocos] exception handling


> On Wed, 6 Mar 2002, Cezary Zielinski wrote:
>
> > The classification of errors is a good idea. In MRROC++ we distinguish 3
> > types of errors:
> > - non-fatal errors (computational errors, e.g. associated with kinematic
> > computations - violation of joint limits)
> > - fatal errors (malfunction of a robot, e.g. someone cuts off power)
> > - system errors (degradation of distributed control system capabilities,
> > e.g. someone turns off one of the nodes of the computer network)
> > Perhaps a finer granularity is needed.
>
> I am wondering whether one should try to catalogue errors in a
> classification of ``importance''... In my view, each component in the
> system should have a means (i) to detect whatever errors it can
> detect, (ii) to react to them as far as it can react to them, and
> (iii) report about them to the ``outside'' world. The architecture of
> how one constructs a system out of components then defines implicitly
> what is the importance of an error.
>
> This view of mine has not matured very much, so don't take it without
> a big grain of salt :-)
>
> Herman
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Orocos mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://mail.mech.kuleuven.ac.be/mailman/listinfo/orocos