From: Johan Nilsson (johan.nilsson_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-05-27 04:11:44
"Andreas Huber" <ah2003_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
> Rob Stewart wrote:
> > Andreas made the remark that tying construction to entry and
> > destruction to exit helps with scalability. I imagine that means
> > the he's worried about a potentially large number of states in
> > some fsm's and that keeping all the state objects alive
> > simultaneously could be a bad idea.
This was exactly the same impression I've had all the time - somewhat
analogous to COM+ where objects have no own 'state' and are constantly
recreated or even reused, IIRC.
> Ok, I guess I didn't express this clearly enough. When I mention
> I always refer to the fact that you can spread a state machine over
> translation units and that a change in one of these TUs will not trigger a
> recompilation of the whole state machine.
This should really be more clearly stated in the docs - perhaps even the
wording 'scalability' should be changed. You're referring to minimizing
compile-time dependencies, right?
The two corner stones that enable
> this are:
> - State local storage. Every FSM object owns separate state objects. I.e.
> state objects are *not* shared between multiple FSM objects (as they are
> some FSM implementations)
The term "state local storage" feels a bit misleading to me - is that a
well-known term? I relate to thread local storage, which makes me think that
each state has some private storage accessible to only itself (well ok,
maybe it has - 'this'). Is another wording possible?
> - custom_reactions
> Whether or not states are also destructed when they are exited does not
> a difference here.
If that is the case; would it be possible to address the question by adding
a state_lifetime policy to e.g. the state_machine class?
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk