Using .launch vs .launch.xml and yaml
Hello,
I have a quick question on standard ros package organization format. Why do some files like AMCL have a launch.xml while others have just a regular .launch extension. I see this all over the place wondering if there was a reason for this. I noticed in both people still use yaml files to upload to the parameter server.
Asked by Akashjinandra on 2019-10-30 13:12:34 UTC
Answers
The primary reason that people choose to end launch files with .launch.xml
or just .xml
is to indicate to users/readers that these files are typically included by other launch files and not meant to be launched themselves. While files ending in .launch.xml
or .xml
can technically be parsed by roslaunch
, the roslaunch
command only tab autocompletes files ending in .launch
.
I've also heard people mention that they like ending launch files with an xml
extension to indicate to text editors that they should use XML syntax highlighting (although for most editors, this is configurable without the extension).
Loading YAML files to the param server happens in many launch files regardless of extension.
Asked by jarvisschultz on 2019-10-30 16:17:22 UTC
Comments
@jarvisschultz already posted a nice answer, but at least the
.launch.xml
part of this question is a duplicate of #q214568.And @Akashjinandra: please try to refrain from asking multiple questions in a single post. ROS Answers works best when there is a 1-to-1 ratio of questions to answers.
Asked by gvdhoorn on 2019-10-31 09:02:22 UTC