Re: [boost] FSM Review

From: Jeff Garland (jeff_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-03-11 23:40:01

On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 11:16:17 -0500, Jody Hagins wrote
>     * Do you think the library should be accepted as a
>       Boost library?  Be sure to say this explicitly so that
>       your other comments don't obscure your overall opinion.
> 
> Yes, with two conditions.
> 
> 1. The name should definitely be changed.  I am not sure, however, what
> a new name should be.  I tend to favor one of Andreas' alternatives:
> umlfsm.
> 
> 2. I also think there should be some commitment to revisit the
> performance issues.  I am not sure how this works, but I'd be satisfied
> with a commitment from Andreas, possibly accompanied by a request to 
> the Boost community for assitance.  I am not certain that an acceptable
> solution can be found, but I think the issue at least needs to be
> addressed again, specifically with input from the Boost community.

I'm glad to see someone actually use a 'conditional accept' clause -- because
it seemed like we had an awful lot of 'mostly good stuff, but I reject because
it won't work for me because of <fill in reason here>' reviews -- where
'performance' seems to be the biggest reason.  And Jody, I with you in that,
I'm not certain that without a code generator there is a solution that
balances all the forces such multiple translation units (essential for
real-world use), performance, scalability, etc.  So if we reject the library
now, we shut out the C++ community that would use the library in current form
in the hope that Andreas will keep working in hopes of an optimum solution to
all the design tradeoffs.  If one doesn't appear or Andreas is discourage then
one group will suffer at the expense of this pursuit.  I really feel this is
the wrong path. As an analogy, I don't want to give up std::string just
because it isn't performant enough to handle all string processing needs...

Jeff