Subject:
|
Re: Some comments (long)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.robotics
|
Date:
|
Thu, 6 May 1999 16:55:20 GMT
|
Original-From:
|
John A. Tamplin <jat@[avoidspam]liveonthenet.com>
|
Viewed:
|
1537 times
|
| |
|
|
On Thu, 6 May 1999, Laurentino Martins wrote:
> I was wondering if any of these projects is thinking in providing enough
> flexibility that would make possible for anyone smoothly integrate new
> sensors with the currently supported ones? (Like Dennis Clark's RCX IRPD?)
Absolutely. What I have in mind is that the basic level of access is to
the raw sensor value of the A/D converter and whether it is active or
passive. The interpretation of that value would be done by other classes.
For example, I would like to have a TouchSensor class that works just fine
using the standard Lego sensor on an input port all to itself. I would like
to have a MultiplexedTouchSensor that interprets values from an input that
has multiple switches attached to it. The interface would be the same so
you could pass an instance of MultiplexedTouchSensor to some code that
expects a TouchSensor and it doesn't know the difference.
If a sensor required something different than a basic passive or active
sensor, there would have to be native code to accomodate that.
> Sorry to return to this, but any is going to provide some connection to
> the PC with some library, or even remote debugging capabilities?
One of the reasons for choosing JVM is the development environments already
available for every platform. For debugging, you simply load the classes
which emulate the RCX's hardware and everything else is already there.
As for communication between the PC and the RCX, that is a network protocol
issue that is beyond the scope of the initial project but could easily be
added later.
John A. Tamplin Traveller Information Services
jat@LiveOnTheNet.COM 2104 West Ferry Way
256/705-7007 - FAX 256/705-7100 Huntsville, AL 35801
--
Did you check the web site first?: http://www.crynwr.com/lego-robotics
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Some comments (long)
|
| (...) You have reiterated exactly what I expected would be one of the most popular reasons to want to implement a JVM for the RCX. I hope you don't think I'm against what you're attempting to do... it's just that I, like Kekoa, believe that the (...) (26 years ago, 6-May-99, to lugnet.robotics)
| | | Re: Some comments (long)
|
| (...) Not that I disagree with the elegance of being able to define a class that implements a new way of reading a sensor; however, I thought I'd point out two issues you might want to consider: First, the ROM already contains a significant amount (...) (26 years ago, 6-May-99, to lugnet.robotics)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Some comments (long)
|
| (...) I was wondering if any of these projects is thinking in providing enough flexibility that would make possible for anyone smoothly integrate new sensors with the currently supported ones? (Like Dennis Clark's RCX IRPD?) Sorry to return to this, (...) (26 years ago, 6-May-99, to lugnet.robotics)
|
42 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
Active threads in Robotics
|
|
|
|
|
|
