From: Andreas Huber (ahd6974-spamgroupstrap_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-12-22 14:23:50
Andrey Semashev wrote:
>> As soon as an FSM needs to be able to process events of arbitrary
>> types you usually need to allocate these events on the free store
>> anyway, also allocating the states there just doubles the runtime
>> needed for new/delete. Sure, you can save all those free store
>> allocations when your FSMs only need to deal with one type of event
>> and state but for many applications this simply is not flexible
> I can't quite agree with you. As it comes from my experience, one of
> the most frequent FSM use cases is when the state machine implements
> some public interface. In this case interface method calls have to be
> translated into events that may be accepted by FSM. And most likely
> these events will be on the stack.
Fair enough, my experience mainly comes from applications where an FSM
either runs in its own thread or is fed by some kind of scheduler. As
I've explained in the performance document, in such a scenario the
inter-thread synchronization costs are usually far higher than cost of
anything Boost.Statechart does.
> As for states' allocation and deallocation, there may be other issues
> with it, besides of performance loss. I'm not quite sure you have read
> our discussion with Alexander Nasonov in this thread, where I pointed
> out that the fact that the state is deleted when being left may be
> inconvenient if the state has its local data. If the state is visited
> again all these data are lost.
Right, in my experience this is the behavior that is most commonly
wanted. IIUC, what you want is something like the currently supported
history but with the added feature that all local variables are also
restored upon entry of the state. Such a feature has been suggested
before but I've so far not found a satisfying way to implement it. IMO,
you definitely need both options and sometimes a state even contains
multiple variables with different needs of resetting/reconstitution.
> And moving these data to an outer state
> or even the to the state machine class makes it exposed to other
> states that shouldn't have had access to it.
Correct, it's not an optimal solution, but it is in my experience not
needed very often.
> Additionally as the data
> amount and states number raises the code of these data-holding classes
> gets more messy.
You've lost me here: Which data-holding classes? In Boost.Statechart
there are only states.
>>> - I can see no way to return a value from a Boost.Statechart's
>>> machine except by passing a reference or a pointer in the event.
>> Correct. How do you return a value? With boost::any?
> Not necessarily. The return type is passed in a state machine's
> template parameter and may be any type, including boost::any. This
> feature is optional, so by default this type is "void" (IOW, the FSM
> returns nothing).
I see that something like this could useful for the use-case you
described. It's not supported in my library because for asynchronous
machines the return value would be lost anyway and even for synchronous
machines it would be meaningless when a machine processes multiple
events in one call as a result of the posting of an internal event. It
is probably for these reasons that the UML standard does not allow a
> BTW, is there any way to make Boost.Statechart's machine not compiling
> if it doesn't expect some particular event type? IOW, to force the
> machine to support all event types being passed to it?
No, as that would require the implementation of the whole machine in one
TU. IMO, the ability to compile parts of a large machine separately is
more important in practice.
-- Andreas Huber When replying by private email, please remove the words spam and trap from the address shown in the header.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk