luca-della-vedova
commented
3 years ago If we go with that solution down the road, it will only allow for one camera to be modified at a time but I think that's acceptable?
Agreed! Looking at the current solution I wonder if we should have a way to specify whether the various parameter fields in the packet are valid or not. It seems in the current implementation all (really only one for now) parameters are applied to the camera while I envision a use case of having N parameters but the user really only wanting to update one or two. So I guess at the bare minimum a "valid" boolean for each parameter, but I also wonder in the bigger picture if we should skip the whole "binary shared header" approach at least for this direction of communication, since it is not bandwidth critical, and just adopt something like JSON where we can just have arbitrary key value pairs for all the parameters that we want to be updated. In this way we would be able to have a lot of flexibility over which camera is updated and what parameter is.
gbalke
Enables live parameter updates for cameras via host-provided values. Currently applies to all connected cameras but it should be possible to select a camera in particular that will be modified (add a camera number to the header).
If we go with that solution down the road, it will only allow for one camera to be modified at a time but I think that's acceptable?