Boost logo

Boost :

Subject: Re: [boost] [msm] orthogonal region and event consume
From: Christophe Henry (christophe.j.henry_at_[hidden])
Date: 2012-05-29 16:17:23

Hi Takatoshi,

> Hello Christophe,
> I'm using Boost.MSM version 1.49.0. I bumped on a suspicious behavior.
> See the attached diagram and code. When Event1 occurs in State1,
> Action1 is invoked.
> I think the event isn't consumed correctly.

This is actually the desired behavior. It is also documented, but it's easy
to miss it, the doc is getting quite big.
"both transitions must be triggered by the same event".

> If the transition from State1 to State2 connect State2 directly
> instead of Entry1, the event seems to be consumed.
> What do you think?

This is coherent with MSM's style. A pseudo entry is defined as a connection
between a transition outside the submachine and a transition inside.
Logically, to process the inside transition, MSM will need to call
process_event(Event1), thus triggering Action1 too. Another behavior would
be surprising because it is also mandated that every region gets a chance to
process any event processed on a submachine. Forbidding this would be
nonstandard, wouldn't it?

Another standard-conform solution would be to mandate that, none would be
the only acceptable event in the transition outgoing from the pseudo entry
and this would be pretty sad because:
- it would break a lot of code
- Event1's data would be lost

I read your ticket. Note that it's not UML-conform to have 2 transitions
originating from Entry1 (11-08-06.pdf §15.3.8 page 551).
After reading the Standard again twice, I realized that no example provided
there displays any event on both transitions, which is really bad if it's
what they mean. I need to have a look at other literature.

Concretely, what is the problem you're having so I can see what can be done?
IIUC yur patch consists of "cheating" with the queue but it has 2
- it costs run-time (ouch!)
- I bet there are cases where the queue is not in the state you'd want.

I suppose it would be possible to treat none on the outgoing transition with
a special behavior but I need to be convinced it's worth the pain and
compile-time. What is your use case?

> Thanks,
> Takatoshi


Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at