From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-08-30 07:38:11
Thomas Stevens <thomathoma69_at_[hidden]> writes:
> forgive me for my ignorance but I'm a boost newbie...
> The rationale document for boost::fsm states that the library should meet a
> number of requirements, numbered from 1 to 9. Especially, the sixth requirement
> says "support the development of arbitrarily large and complex state machines.".
> Ok, this may be good - I guess it is in fact good. But I'm a bit anxious that
> this implies that the library is therefore not suitable for enviroments where
> no unnecessary overhead is acceptable, like in many embedded applications.
> However, the seventh requirement indicates that my worries are unjustified
> since it reads: "allow the user to customize all resource management so that
> the library could be used for applications with hard real-time requirements".
> And further down the Rationale document one can read a section on the Resource
> usage of Memory which looks good.
> So, just to be sure, is boost::fsm suitable for the development of embedded
> applications where constraints such as memory footprint is an issue?
> (Hopefully, someone can answer this based on the experience of using the
> library or by knowing the code - not by reading the documentation (like me ;-)).
That is a concern of mine, too. You might be interested in
http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.lib.boost.devel/100637, which has
the attachments announced in the earlier message. These FSM
frameworks have minimal overhead, suitable for embedded systems. They
also have fewer features (so far) than Andreas' design does.
-- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting http://www.boost-consulting.com
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk