Ask Your Question
0

Using .launch vs .launch.xml and yaml

asked 2019-10-30 13:12:34 -0600

Akashjinandra gravatar image

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.

edit retag flag offensive close merge delete

Comments

1

@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.

gvdhoorn gravatar imagegvdhoorn ( 2019-10-31 09:02:22 -0600 )edit

1 Answer

Sort by ยป oldest newest most voted
6

answered 2019-10-30 16:17:22 -0600

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.

edit flag offensive delete link more

Your Answer

Please start posting anonymously - your entry will be published after you log in or create a new account.

Add Answer

Question Tools

Stats

Asked: 2019-10-30 13:12:34 -0600

Seen: 34 times

Last updated: Oct 30