Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

The specified queue size/depth in rmw interface... #13

Open
dirk-thomas opened this issue May 19, 2015 · 6 comments
Open

The specified queue size/depth in rmw interface... #13

dirk-thomas opened this issue May 19, 2015 · 6 comments
Labels
enhancement New feature or request help wanted Extra attention is needed

Comments

@dirk-thomas
Copy link
Member

dirk-thomas commented May 19, 2015

... currently only ensures that the history depth of the data reader and writer is at least the specified size.

While this allow the user to use vendor specific configuration to override the QoS parameters it prevents the user from setting a not-to-be-changed queue size.

We might want to consider offering both options to the developer and decide which behavior should be the default.

@jacquelinekay
Copy link
Contributor

To be considered in ros2/design#36 or related pull requests

@mikaelarguedas mikaelarguedas changed the title specified queue size in rmw interface The specified queue size in rmw interface... Aug 4, 2017
@mikaelarguedas mikaelarguedas changed the title The specified queue size in rmw interface... The specified queue size/depth in rmw interface... Aug 4, 2017
@wjwwood
Copy link
Member

wjwwood commented Feb 22, 2018

@dirk-thomas is this still an issue? Do you remember why depth is only "ensured" and not enforced?

@dirk-thomas
Copy link
Member Author

I have no knowledge of a change in the behavior regarding this so I expect it to be still the same issue.

@wjwwood
Copy link
Member

wjwwood commented Feb 22, 2018

Can answer my second question? Why is it this way in the first place? Is it because of the global default, driven by the dds configuration files?

@dirk-thomas
Copy link
Member Author

@wjwwood wjwwood added the help wanted Extra attention is needed label Feb 22, 2018
@wjwwood
Copy link
Member

wjwwood commented Feb 22, 2018

I understand that this is how it's currently implemented, I was asking why was it implemented that way? I was asking if there was a good reason for it, or if it was that this alternative was picked at random. Or if you were aware of any discussion where we discussed the two alternatives.

I finally managed to find the original conversation about this (it was in a collapsed inline comment thread): ros2/rmw_opensplice#31 (comment)

The summary is basically that there needs to be a way to either specify exactly what you want or use the system default and/or optionally allow for the current behavior which is request a history depth, but use the system default if it's bigger.

mauropasse pushed a commit to mauropasse/rmw that referenced this issue Feb 8, 2021
Add more info on set_listener_callback comments
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
enhancement New feature or request help wanted Extra attention is needed
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants