On 5/12/2014 1:58 PM, andy pugh wrote: > On 12 May 2014 19:51, Charles Steinkuehler <char...@steinkuehler.net> wrote: > >> * Why hasn't joints-axis been added as an alternate loadable motion >> module? Then anyone can play with it if they want but it doesn't >> instantly break every installed configuration. > > JA needs different information from the HAL file. Separate Joint and > Axis data implies different INI file entries. > (It could have not required this, but then the INI file would be even > more confusing than it is now).
I understand all that, and have migrated configurations back and forth between "normal" and joints-axis multiple times. > You can easily have an installed normal LinuxCNC and a RIP JA4 on the > same machine. My question is why can't the same build support both, with an ini file setting selecting the desired version? Perhaps something like: [EMCMOT] EMCMOT = motmod-joints-axis ...then everyone can run their existing configurations with no changes, and the adventurous can experiment with joints-axis. It seems like everyone is viewing changes like joints-axis and the new trajectory planner as "all or nothing", and I always thought one of the coolest things about LinuxCNC is it's modularity. I'm just trying to understand why it isn't possible to have both versions in the code tree for a while and where the all-or-nothing part is coming from. -- Charles Steinkuehler char...@steinkuehler.net
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
------------------------------------------------------------------------------ "Accelerate Dev Cycles with Automated Cross-Browser Testing - For FREE Instantly run your Selenium tests across 300+ browser/OS combos. Get unparalleled scalability from the best Selenium testing platform available Simple to use. Nothing to install. Get started now for free." http://p.sf.net/sfu/SauceLabs
_______________________________________________ Emc-developers mailing list Emc-developers@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-developers
