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