ros2
Add option for the events executor to the isolated component container
Before we move forward with this, I think it'd be good to do @fujitatomoya's comment of adding this to the ComponentManager as well.
EventsExecutor is still experimental
we should have a discussion on what would be the steps necessary to bring it out of experimental, but IMO this shouldn't prevent from using it here (especially because it's not the default).
Before adding EventsExecutor to ComponentManagerIsolated, probably we would want to support ComponentManager?
I agree.
Moreover, I wonder if we really need all these separate executables (component_container_mt.cpp, component_container.cpp, component_container_isolated.cpp). IMO we could just have 1 executable with a bunch of arguments: --isolated (true if present) and --executor-type (second argument is the name of the executor)
Your last arguments (--isolated & --executor-type) did cross my mind. But I was afraid about acceptance of larger PR's and backportability to Jazzy. But they can actually easily be extended without bracking api. So I'll happy refactor to that syntax if you agree :+1:
This pull request has been mentioned on ROS Discourse. There might be relevant details there:
https://discourse.ros.org/t/the-ros-2-c-executors/38296/5
@Timple the PR looks good. Would you mind merging / rebasing your branch with rolling so that I can start the CI?
So it seems that I got bypassed here: https://github.com/ros2/rclcpp/pull/2885
If more hardcoded nodes is the way to go, this can be closed I guess?
@Timple thanks for circling back to this.
this PR is the another enhancement to add the option to isolated container, but https://github.com/ros2/rclcpp/pull/2885 only adds the another executable with EventsExecutor. where i can see, these two enhancement is really different.
but that is up to you. if you are good to go with https://github.com/ros2/rclcpp/pull/2885 and please go ahead to close this PR. when someone finds and takes over this PR, that is when we can come back to this enhancement?
I think I never saw your review and was under the impression this was good to go. I'll implement your requested changes!
How do I get the more-information-label removed?
I have the feeling this PR is stale because every PR with this label is simply overlooked? I rebased once again to make Ci happy.