Boost logo

Boost :

From: Chris Russell (cdr_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-06-03 21:05:37

The terminology tutorial is excellent. Thanks - that's helpful. So my
question should have been:

Has any thought been given to the protocol(s) necessary to use the FSM
library for building systems (by Scott's definition).


That was a little bit of tongue in cheek. Not entirely a serious comment.
Not entirely. DOT is used to describe graphs and the BGL has facility to
read and write in DOT format (and the AT&T docs on DOT are complete). I've
been on a "if it can be modeled as a graph, use the BGL" kick lately.

"Scott Woods" <scottw_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
> 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.
> > 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,
> 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
> > GraphViz DOT or some other format that explicitly deals with the
> > 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
> _______________________________________________
> Unsubscribe & other changes:

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at