[wholeBodyDynamicsTree] Backward compatibility about codyco-modules HOT 6 CLOSED

I am ok with the ports at the end effectors. Concerning which ports to port I would only add those that are used by first sending an email to rc-hackers, adding those that people ask not to remove. In case someone changes his mind we can always add the other ports upon request.
Francesco

Francesco Nori
Istituto Italiano di Tecnologia
Email: [email protected]:[email protected]

Web: people.liralab.it/ironhttp://people.liralab.it/iron

On 15/apr/2014, at 19:04, "Silvio Traversaro" <[email protected]mailto:[email protected]> wrote:

For simplifying the codyco demo scenario (in relation to #39#39) I was looking into adding /icub/part/endEffectorWrench:o and /icub/part/cartesianEndEffectorWrench:o to stream directly the wrench acting at the end effector, expressed at root (base) and end effector reference frame.

Apparently this ports are used by some users out in the world, as reported on rc-hackershttp://robotcub-hackers.2198711.n2.nabble.com/cartesianEndEffectorWrench-in-wholeBodyDynamics-td7193972.html.

In general, we have to decide which ports to support in the new wholeBodyDynamics for backward compatibility (I guess we all agree that we do not want to support ALL the ports that are currently exposed by wholeBodyDynamics).

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHubhttps://github.com//issues/40.

from codyco-modules.

I am using these ports !!

Sere

From: Francesco Nori [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: mercredi 16 avril 2014 07:46
To: robotology/codyco
Subject: Re: [codyco] [wholeBodyDynamicsTree] Backward compatibility (#40)

I am ok with the ports at the end effectors. Concerning which ports to port I would only add those that are used by first sending an email to rc-hackers, adding those that people ask not to remove. In case someone changes his mind we can always add the other ports upon request.
Francesco

Francesco Nori
Istituto Italiano di Tecnologia
Email: mailto:[email protected]%3cmailto:[email protected] [email protected]:[email protected]

Web: people.liralab.it/iron< http://people.liralab.it/iron http://people.liralab.it/iron>

On 15/apr/2014, at 19:04, "Silvio Traversaro" < mailto:[email protected]%3cmailto:[email protected] [email protected]:[email protected]> wrote:

For simplifying the codyco demo scenario (in relation to #39< #39 https://github.com/robotology/codyco/issues/39>) I was looking into adding /icub/part/endEffectorWrench:o and /icub/part/cartesianEndEffectorWrench:o to stream directly the wrench acting at the end effector, expressed at root (base) and end effector reference frame.

Apparently this ports are used by some users out in the world, as reported on rc-hackers< http://robotcub-hackers.2198711.n2.nabble.com/cartesianEndEffectorWrench-in-wholeBodyDynamics-td7193972.html http://robotcub-hackers.2198711.n2.nabble.com/cartesianEndEffectorWrench-in-wholeBodyDynamics-td7193972.html>.

In general, we have to decide which ports to support in the new wholeBodyDynamics for backward compatibility (I guess we all agree that we do not want to support ALL the ports that are currently exposed by wholeBodyDynamics).

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub< #40 https://github.com/robotology/codyco/issues/40>.

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub #40 (comment) . https://github.com/notifications/beacon/3786602__eyJzY29wZSI6Ik5ld3NpZXM6QmVhY29uIiwiZXhwaXJlcyI6MTcxMzI0NjM2MCwiZGF0YSI6eyJpZCI6MzAwNzM1ODl9fQ==--070057fe004820b9578f30a895e0b416f4175092.gif

from codyco-modules.

Can we all meet after the 23rd and define a new set of interfaces? There are other things we have to discuss and post-poned for too long now ☺

From: Francesco Nori [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: mercoledì 16 aprile 2014 07:46
To: robotology/codyco
Subject: Re: [codyco] [wholeBodyDynamicsTree] Backward compatibility (#40)

I am ok with the ports at the end effectors. Concerning which ports to port I would only add those that are used by first sending an email to rc-hackers, adding those that people ask not to remove. In case someone changes his mind we can always add the other ports upon request.
Francesco

Francesco Nori
Istituto Italiano di Tecnologia
Email: [email protected]:[email protected]mailto:[email protected]%3cmailto:[email protected]

Web: people.liralab.it/ironhttp://people.liralab.it/iron

On 15/apr/2014, at 19:04, "Silvio Traversaro" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]mailto:[email protected]%3cmailto:[email protected]>> wrote:

For simplifying the codyco demo scenario (in relation to #39#39) I was looking into adding /icub/part/endEffectorWrench:o and /icub/part/cartesianEndEffectorWrench:o to stream directly the wrench acting at the end effector, expressed at root (base) and end effector reference frame.

Apparently this ports are used by some users out in the world, as reported on rc-hackershttp://robotcub-hackers.2198711.n2.nabble.com/cartesianEndEffectorWrench-in-wholeBodyDynamics-td7193972.html.

In general, we have to decide which ports to support in the new wholeBodyDynamics for backward compatibility (I guess we all agree that we do not want to support ALL the ports that are currently exposed by wholeBodyDynamics).

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHubhttps://github.com//issues/40.

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHubhttps://github.com//issues/40#issuecomment-40565191.

from codyco-modules.

Ok for me!

from codyco-modules.

cc @alecive

from codyco-modules.

The wholeBodyDynamicsTree module is currently in the process of being deprecated, see https://github.com/robotology/codyco-modules/blob/master/doc/force_control_on_icub.md for the documentation on how to use the latest wholebodydynamics YARP device, and #223 for the current status of the deprecation.

from codyco-modules.