On Jun 15 2013 10:32 AM, Jon Elson wrote: > John Kasunich wrote: >> That was mostly >> driven by adamant opposition to HAL by certain EMC people. >> I wanted to make sure that even if HAL didn't wind up in EMC >> (or it was heavily watered down), the highly modular concept >> would be preserved elsewhere. Once HAL caught on as part >> of EMC2, I no longer needed that backup plan, and the BLOCS >> Sourceforge project has been sitting in stasis for years. >> >> I fully support Michael's "MachineKit" idea. And I like his name >> better too. >> > I have a customer right now who is a candidate for a standalone HAL. > Not such a big deal to load an entire LinuxCNC system and just use it > that way, so it may not need a separate way to build it. The > customer > has some razor blades on a chain, and these need to move like > electronic gearing when a part comes down a production line. > I mentioned to him that this might be a good case to run HAL > standalone, > rather than having to trigger a G-code program at the right moment.
I would say it really needs to be standalone... libHAL, or just HAL. That being said, if the configuration, etc. is built reasonably, it is just a couple of lines of change to go from what you must have to get it to compile to compile in a related group. EBo -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ This SF.net email is sponsored by Windows: Build for Windows Store. http://p.sf.net/sfu/windows-dev2dev _______________________________________________ Emc-developers mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-developers
