search

osrf / capabilities

Implements the concept of capabilities as part of the robots-in-concert system.
Other
8 stars 26 forks source link

Simplify usage of semantic and normal capabilities #32

Closed bit-pirate closed 10 years ago

bit-pirate commented 10 years ago

I think, from a user point of view (e.g. starting/stopping capabilies, defining dependencies on them) it's not really important to distinguish between semantic and normal capabilities/interfaces.

Is there a need to keep them separate, e.g. get_interfaces, get_semantic_interfaces? The information about their difference is stored in their specification anyway.

wjwwood commented 10 years ago

Starting and stopping capabilities doesn't make a differentiation, and if you are talking about providers which depend on other interfaces, then that doesn't care either.

There are separate topics for the case when you might want to know which is which. Internally they are pretty different, so combining the representation wouldn't make sense to me. I don't know of any place externally where they are needlessly represented as different things, can you be more specific about which use cases you find annoying?

bit-pirate commented 10 years ago

I don't know of any place externally where they are needlessly represented as different things, can you be more specific about which use cases you find annoying?

Actually no. Since I'm now using the service discovery tools, I'm not depending on the normal services any more. In those tools I couldn't find any useless/annoying duplication. Hence, I'm considering this solved. In case I'll run into any annoyance in the future, I'll reopen this one or create specific new issues.