G.A. vd. Hoorn

@ted-miller: would there be any way to (re)start this effort?

@ted-miller wrote: > @gavanderhoorn : I'll still offer up the I/F panel option. It far less aesthetically appealing. But, I could have that ready for you today. I don't have...

Just making sure again this doesn't fall off everyone's radar again. :bell: :robot: Personally I would really love to see this realised, as it's tremendously valuable to be able to...

Related #21.

Note: if we do switch to effort interfaces (#521), this PR will not be needed any more. It would still be relevant for `kinetic-devel`, as that branch will not see...

Thanks @tdl-tbslab for getting this up-to-date again. I'll see if I can test this out sometime soon. @ted-miller: are there any things in here that catch your eye?

@alemme, @andreaskoepf any comments? This sounds similar to what you described on ROS Discourse, sans the trapezoidal velocity generator (and possibly some other things you didn't mention).

I've added a few more comments (apologies, I should'v done a review instead). Overall question: does this support multi-group systems?

Thanks for iterating on this @tdl-tbslab. Much appreciated. re: multi-group: yes, the [DynamicJointPoint](http://docs.ros.org/kinetic/api/motoman_msgs/html/msg/DynamicJointPoint.html) would be needed. It should not be too hard to add, but we might not want to...

> I am assuming that multi-group refers to multi-arm setups such as the SDA5. not necessarily. Work cells with a single arm on a linear track, or an arm with...