On Dec 5 2012 5:49 AM, Anders Wallin wrote: >> >> >> > I am curious what else you have seen regarding Plan 9. You may >> not >> > know, but the Plan 9 files system protocol has been in the main >> kernel >> > tree for some time, and various other bits and bobs are being >> slowly >> > ported from Plan 9 to Linux. I will have to check into to if the >> user >> > defined name spaces have been ported yet -- those are useful. If >> you >> > are interested in looking robotics using 9p take a look at >> > Styx-on-a-Brick. >> >> Ebo, Kent - >> >> what you are really touching upon here is the question of future >> middleware, i.e. NML/RCS replacement candidates which can act as >> remote HAL >> access too >> whatever we pick, this must be requirements-driven, and whatever >> comes up >> needs to be checked very thoroughly against all key requirements, >> nevermind >> the elegance of underlying idea - past experience helps but should >> not >> mislead one to overlook any of the must-have criteria. >> we discussed this before, but the must-haves of my requirements list >> include: >> - operating system independence (read as: a userland only affair, >> and >> available on non-*x platforms - anything in-kernel is a potential >> detriment) >> - multiple paradigms - plain messaging, publish/subscribe, remote >> procedure call >> - multiple language bindings available >> > > This recent paper may have some ideas on a dedicated real-time > controller > that drives hardware, but is controlled over a non-realtime protocol > by a > PC or handheld device > "Real-time environment design for testing advanced control approaches > in > parallel robots" > http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00170-012-4581-6 > or > http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs00170-012-4581-6#page-1 > (surprisingly springer seems to allow download of the PDF, at least > for > me..)
odd... I do not seem to have received the quoted email sent to Kent and I. Let me state a couple of things up front. When I said I would be looking into the Plan 9 stuff (strictly on the Linux side, as I do not want to play with the Plan 9 community again) it is for my thesis and not EMC. Yes, a full requirements check needs to be done, but it is already proven to work in RT motion control applications. That is not saying that it would be the best fit here. The papers in the reply look interesting, and I will need to read them later (assuming that I remember -- I am way over swamped at work)... Is there a list of your your/other requirements on the wiki some place? It would be interesting to see. As for what you have written above, I am not sure how well 9p is supported in Windows natively, but the linux kernel integration is new. I should mention that is the file system protocol itself, and that says nothing about the stuff that builds on top of it. As for the rest I think I can testify that it passes (as I have written 9p code and communicated to 9p programs with scripts (very common BTW)... EBo -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ LogMeIn Rescue: Anywhere, Anytime Remote support for IT. Free Trial Remotely access PCs and mobile devices and provide instant support Improve your efficiency, and focus on delivering more value-add services Discover what IT Professionals Know. Rescue delivers http://p.sf.net/sfu/logmein_12329d2d _______________________________________________ Emc-developers mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-developers
