Re: [boost] Re: Re: Some questions on the FSM submission

From: Scott Woods (scottw_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-06-05 19:47:45

> this is a product i used a few years ago. its a pretty complete
> "implementation"
> of SDL - you draw SDL, push a button and it generates the target system
> in C (that's what the brochures say ;-). it is very much targeted at large
> communities of FSMs.
>
> the sort of thing that i queried a while ago (and i think related to what
> chris was
> asking) was; "where is the [separate] definition of the protocols"? right
or
> wrong
> i believe that FSMs interact through sending of signals (presentation of
> events?).
> this interaction is a protocol and a protocol has its own "existence" - it
> is not
> owned by the FSMs. neither UML or SDL highlights this. using SDL i was
> certainly able to implement protocols but it would have been a royal pain
to
> uplift that "protocol" and reuse it in another project.

Hmmmm. Apologies. Just had a read of some of the UML material and have
to take this back. My knowledge of UML needs updating. It looks like OMG is
competing with ITU pretty damn successfully these days.

Putting that fight aside for a moment (UML vs SDL) the separation of
protocol from FSMs is maybe a concept of interest to you and your library.
But truly see this as just "future" stuff. Looking forward to current
functionality.

Ta,
Scott