Subject:
|
Re: Multitasking
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.robotics
|
Date:
|
Fri, 9 Jul 2004 22:03:16 GMT
|
Original-From:
|
T. Alexander Popiel <popiel@wolfskeep.comSAYNOTOSPAM>
|
Viewed:
|
947 times
|
| |
|
|
In message: <I0LMLC.145v@lugnet.com>
"Bert Weber" <Bert.Weber@gmx.net> writes:
>
> Which concept is better, abort the task and execute the new task or
> interrupt the running task and go back after finishing the high prio task?
Neither is universally better. Both have their uses. It all depends on
what you want to do. If the sensor just indicates something that you
need to make a small adjustment for (turn away from a bumper push, for
instance), then returning to the original task may be preferable. If the
sensor indicates some critical condition (battery failure imminent,
perhaps), then completely abandoning the old task may be more appropriate.
There's even cases in between, where you might have long-range tasks along
the lines of "hunt for power plug" and short-range tasks "move forward
to wall", where a sensor contact may mean abandoning the immediate task
but continuing with the longer-term ones.
- Alex
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Multitasking
|
| Hi, I have some questions about usage of multitasking in robotics. I think its necessary, because it simplifies programming. Instead of breaking down actions in small pieces and check sensors in between. For example: driving a square and watching (...) (20 years ago, 9-Jul-04, to lugnet.robotics)
|
5 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
