Javier: the plan looks great, and I am very grateful that you try so hard to fix the base types ... But there is IMO still the same unresolved issues, and that's a lot for an "imminent change".
You put all over the place "changing the type is not that hard". Have you already changed to the new type ? How much changes did you need to make in your code ? Have you tried building the vanilla (i.e. unmodified) all-of-Rock with the new type in ? From my perspective, changing a base type *is* hard. It has an effect on day-to-day work for all people that have been using RBS. It breaks backward compatibility. Having a Deprecated class is, as far as I can see, close to useless as RBS is mainly an orogen interface type, and one will not be able to connect a Deprecated port to a non-deprecated port. Mixing the two types will be impossible (since they have the same name but different ABIs). So, that's all-or-nothing: either you change all your code to use the new RBS, or you keep the old one. Mixing stable and master will be unreliable at best. Lot of people will probably end up using master (with the pain and suffering that entails). Does someone have any experience for a wide-ranging change like this ? How would we get to the point where we *do* have experience before we push it to everyone ? How do we avoid just randomly pushing this change to everyone, while many people won't have the time and energy to migrate to a brand new RBS ? There is zero documentation and zero experience for a wide-ranging change like this, and I currently have the impression that the issue of such a change are just brushed off with a "let's do it, it's going to be fine". rock-convert exists, but is documented nowhere. Now, if this "changing RBS is just fine" is the consensus, I would vote for just creating a new type. At least, we would not pretend that we're providing a clean upgrade path, and won't upset those of us that don't have the time to just migrate to a completely new type that just happens to have kind-of the same API. Finally, you guys seem to push so much towards changing the base types. If that's so high in your agenda, it might be time to put the effort to make the process butter-smooth by doing the necessary toolchain work ? Sylvain On Thu, Apr 16, 2015 at 10:54 AM, Javier Hidalgo Carrió <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi, > > RigidBodyState (RBS) is changing. There is a list of imminent actions (1 > - 10 bullets). > Your comments and alternative solutions are very welcome. Write them here: > https://github.com/rock-core/base-types/wiki/TranformWithUncertainty-in-base-types#list-of-imminent-actions > > Javier. > > _______________________________________________ > Rock-users mailing list > [email protected] > http://www.dfki.de/mailman/cgi-bin/listinfo/rock-users _______________________________________________ Rock-dev mailing list [email protected] http://www.dfki.de/mailman/cgi-bin/listinfo/rock-dev
