Re: [boost] [Boost.Msm] On the necessity ofstate-boundary-crossingtransitions

Subject: Re: [boost] [Boost.Msm] On the necessity ofstate-boundary-crossingtransitions
From: Andreas Huber (ahd6974-spamboostorgtrap_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-10-30 18:24:47

Hi Christophe

> I am not sure what is the point of such a challenge considering that I
> already explained that entry and exit pseudo states are not supported yet
> but will probably be in the future.

To me, it wasn't all that clear whether you are committed to provide such 
states, but I guess I've misinterpreted things.

> Their absence is not by design as you
> seem to think but simply a decision of when to bring a version 1.0 and 
> what
> should be inside.

Excellent, that's good to hear!

> Anyway, as you offered me this challenge, I offer a solution which you 
> will
> find in the vault (
> http://www.boostpro.com/vault/index.php?direction=0&order=&directory=Msm&).
> I think this solution is a good example of what you can do with Msm and 
> will
> hopefully make it clear how sub machines can make life easier.

I guess we agree that, strictly speaking, the challenge remains unsolved 
(your FSM has a different observable behavior). However, I do agree that 
using orthogonal regions for the alarms is superior to Harel's original. 
Anyway, I'll shut up now, as entry & exit points will definitely address my 
current concerns :-).

Kudos,

-- 
Andreas Huber
When replying by private email, please remove the words spam and trap
from the address shown in the header.