You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
At work, we have been using message filters for a while now.
While transitioning to LifecycleNodes, we noticed that the interface of the message subscriber still relies on a Node type, which supports create_subscription with a specific signature.
The intended way of the rclcpp::NodeInterfaces seems to circumvent the use of any Node type and use specific interfaces instead.
We are currently working on implementing similar changes in other projects (see image_transport and image_transport_plugins).
This is why we depend on similar changes here.
Are there any reasons against such a change?
Since we (especially @authaldo) are working on it anyway, we would be happy to contribute a PR.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
At work, we have been using message filters for a while now.
While transitioning to
LifecycleNodes
, we noticed that the interface of the message subscriber still relies on a Node type, which supportscreate_subscription
with a specific signature.The intended way of the
rclcpp::NodeInterfaces
seems to circumvent the use of any Node type and use specific interfaces instead.We are currently working on implementing similar changes in other projects (see image_transport and image_transport_plugins).
This is why we depend on similar changes here.
Are there any reasons against such a change?
Since we (especially @authaldo) are working on it anyway, we would be happy to contribute a PR.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: