Hi
I think now Orocos 2.x will support the concept of IN port and OUT
port, is this true?
How will the deployment XML support the concept of IN and OUT for ports?
Seems like the cpf DTD allows for elements <description> or <choices>
to be a child of <simple>
thus we might have something like:
<struct name="Ports" type="PropertyBag">
?
<simple name="SensorValues" type="string">
<description>OUT<description>
<value>SensorValuesConnection<value>
<simple>
<simple name="SteeringSignals" type="string">
<value>DriveConnection<value>
?
<choices>
<choice>OUT<choice>
<choices>
<simple>
<struct>
I would favor using the <description> tag since it is simpler to
implement and seems to be semantically correct.
Comments, suggestions???
-H
--
Orocos-Dev mailing list
Orocos-Dev [..] ...
http://lists.mech.kuleuven.be/mailman/listinfo/orocos-dev
IN and OUT ports in XML
On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 10:42 AM, Hugo Garcia <hugo [dot] a [dot] garcia [..] ...> wrote:
> Hi
>
> I think now Orocos 2.x will support the concept of IN port and OUT
> port, is this true?
Yes.
> How will the deployment XML support the concept of IN and OUT for ports?
Never in its current form. That's why we are hammering on the 'other'
xml format that
describes the interface of a component and which you need to
interprete the current
deployment XML format. You received examples of that format about half
a year ago,
and you're still not using it.
We will not extend the current deployment XML format.
>
> Seems like the cpf DTD allows for elements <description> or <choices>
> to be a child of <simple>
>
> thus we might have something like:
>
> <struct name="Ports" type="PropertyBag">
> ?
> <simple name="SensorValues" type="string">
> <description>OUT<description>
> <value>SensorValuesConnection<value>
> <simple>
>
>
>
> <simple name="SteeringSignals" type="string">
> <value>DriveConnection<value>
> ?
> <choices>
> <choice>OUT<choice>
> <choices>
> <simple>
> <struct>
>
> I would favor using the <description> tag since it is simpler to
> implement and seems to be semantically correct.
It is by no means semantically correct to put that kind of information
in a field meant for humans, which may contain any string.
Peter
--
Orocos-Dev mailing list
Orocos-Dev [..] ...
http://lists.mech.kuleuven.be/mailman/listinfo/orocos-dev
IN and OUT ports in XML
On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 21:23, Peter Soetens <peter [..] ...> wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 10:42 AM, Hugo Garcia <hugo [dot] a [dot] garcia [..] ...> wrote:
>> Hi
>>
>> I think now Orocos 2.x will support the concept of IN port and OUT
>> port, is this true?
>
> Yes.
>
>> How will the deployment XML support the concept of IN and OUT for ports?
>
> Never in its current form. That's why we are hammering on the 'other'
> xml format that
> describes the interface of a component and which you need to
> interprete the current
> deployment XML format. You received examples of that format about half
> a year ago,
> and you're still not using it.
I am using it the new one and it works very nicely as you already saw
where the graphical edutor does have the concept of in and out ports.
That model is persisted in XMI as should be. The problem is
TRANSLATION to the old cpf file format not usage of the new model.
The question is do we map the missing elements from the new model to
the old XML?
You already answered.
thanks
-H