Framework Comparison » History » Version 3
Version 2 (S. Wrede, 12/15/2010 01:24 PM) → Version 3/38 (S. Wrede, 12/15/2010 01:28 PM)
h1. ROS Comparison
Please note: We are comparing RSB against roscore not against ROS!
h2. Functional Differences
h3. Facts
* ROS provides topic-based pub-sub, RSB provides an m:n event bus.
h3. Wishes
* We believe in the power of reflection and self-description, such that
* a generic subscription mechanism, e.g., with path-based access such as XPath becomes feasible
* messages can be generally understood by everyone even if parts are not accessible
* RSB shall provide better introspection features, both for programmtic access (e.g., for anomaly detection) but also for developers bus
h1. ROS Integration
Potential strategies:
* (Generic) Bridge Component
* ROS Port (ROS as a transport, mapping to our concepts)
* RSB Integration in ROS
Ideas:
* Naming maintains features sets (which component understands what on which framework)
Please note: We are comparing RSB against roscore not against ROS!
h2. Functional Differences
h3. Facts
* ROS provides topic-based pub-sub, RSB provides an m:n event bus.
h3. Wishes
* We believe in the power of reflection and self-description, such that
* a generic subscription mechanism, e.g., with path-based access such as XPath becomes feasible
* messages can be generally understood by everyone even if parts are not accessible
* RSB shall provide better introspection features, both for programmtic access (e.g., for anomaly detection) but also for developers bus
h1. ROS Integration
Potential strategies:
* (Generic) Bridge Component
* ROS Port (ROS as a transport, mapping to our concepts)
* RSB Integration in ROS
Ideas:
* Naming maintains features sets (which component understands what on which framework)