On Fri, 2008-05-16 at 13:38 -0400, Matt Shaver wrote: > On Fri, 2008-05-16 at 09:46 -0400, John Kasunich wrote: > > > I don't see HAL and NML as doing the same thing, and I certainly > > wouldn't propose HAL pins for the task planner. > > I see your point. The HAL is what you said, not an IPC method, at least > not an intentional one. I guess I like it because it's so easily > manipulated, like a scripting language :) . > > Thanks, > Matt
A few folk were brain storming a while back about task planning. There were even a couple of graphics floating about that described possible systems. The way that we thought of it was using hooks into the task at various levels that sounds now a lot like the way that HAL connects things together. Perhaps we need a TAL that can be configured a bit like HAL is. It would need to sit in NML much as the current task planner does and negotiate motion, IO, and state much the way that it is currently done. The advantage would be that if no tool changing was done, none need be included, If manual tool change is done, a manual tool change routine might be connected. If auto tool change is available, one matching the logic of the tool changer could be linked in. Rayh ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/ _______________________________________________ Emc-users mailing list Emc-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-users
