Hi Jürgen, I guess you really understood my writings.
On Sonntag, 19. April 2020, 08:03:30 CEST Juergen Gnoss wrote: > If the motion queue is made of a few rolling buffers and does pull the > content of that buffers from task-manager rather than get pushed into it, > it's far more easy to keep track of the machine state. Right. > Task-manager splits motion commands into "motion blocks", caring for motion > logic not for filled buffers, and knows the order in what they should be > executed. Exactly > If motion asks for the next block, ... Well, motion should not ask for anything. It should work out what is in the motion queue. If the task-manager works in single-step mode, than it puts only a single move into motions queue. Motion executes that and as the queue is empty it waits for next entry. So task-manager knows the sequence of motions and machinecommands and how they interact or how they are related. Motion does not need to know about machine commands (like flood, mist or spindle commands) > Sounds a lot of work, but that relativates to a lot of modules with a small > amount of code each. So maintenance should profit from that as well. Well, best would be, first discuss the desired system design. Code is all there, it needs to be reorganized/moved. May be, that's a chance to rewrite ugly/obfuscated code. Reinhard _______________________________________________ Emc-developers mailing list Emc-developers@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-developers
