Re: [boost] FSM Review Announcement

From: Chris Knight (cknite_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-08-07 12:14:32

On Thursday 07 August 2008 10:58:21 am Andrey Semashev wrote:
> I see. However, tags are not a good candidate to dispatch events on
> since different events can have same tags. I think, the event itself
> should contain enough information to be dispatched after being postponed.
>
> BTW, you can achieve the same functionality right now if you bind the
> event to the process function of the FSM and save the call into
> boost::function.

I never thought of that one. Maybe a little mention in the Documentation would 
be good. I imagine other potential users might want to do the same.

> I think, this would be an interesting feature to add in future releases.
> I won't be able to implement it before the review. State and transition
> base classes will have to be extended, in order to allow to postpone
> events. State machine and event classes will have to be modified too.

Yeah, something like EventID and TransactionID in each event and transaction 
would be nice along with I imagine a deferred_state_machine and a 
deferred_lock_state_machine

Thanks,
Chris