bpwilcox

@hidmic Yes, I'd started some local changes before the new year but had been preoccupied since. Most notably, as suggested I'm intending to move the ros__parameters and ros__parameter_descriptors to be...

> @bpwilcox do you still plan on submitting changes? Or shall I close this patch? Yes, I believe I should have some more cycles to work on this in the...

@hidmic I've re-done this work and addressed feedback on a [separate branch](https://github.com/bpwilcox/rcl/tree/param_descriptors_feedback_revised). It was easier and cleaner than trying to resolve all of the merge conflicts considering the many changes...

@mjeronimo I reset this branch with commits from my revised branch. This way the previous PR comments can be referenced. Maybe we can get some re-reviews of this work while...

Thanks for your feedback @hidmic I will be addressing your feedback soon!

Hey @hidmic Could you take another pass through this review since my latest commits?

@hidmic The parameter blackboard is a use-case that I believe well deserves this feature, but I believe even application-specific nodes could benefit. > A node's implementation usually relies on the...

> just idea, i think rclcpp_lifecycle::LifercycleNode is built on top of rclcpp::Node. so rclcpp_lifecycle::LifecycleNode Class inherits based on rclcpp::Node and featured with lifecycle interfaces. > Currently, the `Node` aand `LifecycleNode`...

This PR looks great! I agree that we should apply similar changes to subscriptions and perhaps action servers as well to comply with the intended lifecycle design. @huchijwk Do you...

@hidmic Thanks for the first pass reviews! In regard to changes to `rclpy`, I do have have a local branch with modifications that I can update for a PR soon...