Re: [boost] Some questions on the FSM submission

From: Scott Woods (scottw_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-06-03 20:48:19

Hi Chris and Andreas,

Have been listening but havent had anything to add. Now have about
0.02 worth...

<snip>
> I read through the documentation but haven't tried coding against the
> library yet. It looks quite useful for building isolated FSM mechanisms. I
> observe in my own work that I typically have many FSM that interact with
> each other. It could be argued that this is really just one large FSM, but
I
> like to think of them in terms of discrete FSM that interact with each
other
> because it makes it easier to conceptualize class structure, threading,
and
> occasionally inter-process or in the case of a distributed application,
> inter-system partitioning.

If I can offer some terminology (not mine but a mish-mash of SDL and
others);
* a FSM is a discrete, hermeticically sealed (like that) state machine
* a collection of co-operating FSMs is a system
* FSMs in a system interact by exchanging events
* an exchange of events is known as a protocol.

<snip>
> I'm not a big UML fan so this aspect of the submission troubles me a
little.
> Do we have a lot of UML fans here? I would be happier if it imported AT&T
> GraphViz DOT or some other format that explicitly deals with the directed
> graph nature of FSM. But that's probably going to be an unpopular idea
> because it begs the question why not use the BGL then?

Not a UML fan. That is, UML isnt at all bad but have had SDL forced on
me by the ITU and now feel it has a narrower (and more successful) focus
on FSM systems (AKA "signaling" in SDL). Now I also have to check out
DOT...

Keep it going,
SW