Re: About component architectures...

Herman Bruyninckx <[email protected]>
Newsgroups gmane.science.robotics.orocos.user
Message-ID <Pine.LNX.4.44.0204271642130.2345-100000@pc25-213.mech.kuleuven.ac.be>
On Fri, 26 Apr 2002, Christian Schlegel wrote:

[...]
> > Resource scheduling
> > Alloting resources to components, allowing them to progress in
> > parallel, and making sure they don't use the resources in conflicting
> > modes.
> 
> Resource scheduling is a key feature at various levels. Therefore there
> will be no unique place for resource scheduling but many different
> instantiations. 
[...]
> Therefore I
> don't see resource scheduling as a generic responsibility within every
> component, only in the sense that a component should at least accept
> resource requests / resource constraints and scheduling requests (like
> deactiating a module) from outside.

That's the same thing. You're not very consistent IMHO: on the one
hand you say resource scheduling is ubiquitous, and on the other hand
you say that is not a generic responsibility in every component...
All the examples you give corroborate my statement that resource
scheduling _is_ needed in every component :-) (Of course, it's
concrete functionality will be different.)


> 
> >
> > Sequencer
> > The sub-component within a component that is responsible for the
> > synchronized execution of a service by other sub-components within
> > that component. Possible mechanisms for sequencing are: finite state
> > machines, Petri nets, task nets, declarative programs, etc.
> 
> The sequencing  in the sense of three-layer architectures (like 3T etc)
> often is called "sequencing layer". 
[...]
> Therefore
> "sequencing layer" should be "sequencing component" in our terminology.

I am not talking about layers: that the system architecture. I'm
talking about the internal component architecture; and every component
internally has a need for a sequencing functionality. That's what I
call a sub-component.

> To be consistent one should call your "sequencer" something like
> "component sequencer" 
No. It doesn't sequence the execution of components, but of their
actions.

Herman

-- 
K.U.Leuven, Mechanical Engineering, Robotics Research Group
<http://www.mech.kuleuven.ac.be/~bruyninc>  +32 16 322480
lmpx.com only provides a reader for public news (NNTP) servers. It is not affiliated with the servers or forums shown here and is not responsible for the content of articles, which is written by their respective authors.