Boost logo

Boost Users :

From: Andreas Huber (ahd6974-spamgroupstrap_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-05-01 14:57:01

Hi Tim

> It seems that the sequence of exit and entry actions invoked for a
> transition are modeled according to the UML 1.5 specification.


> In
> other words it models "external" transitions from the 2.0 spec. Is it
> possible,

It's certainly possible ...

> or are there any plans to extend it, to model the more
> useful local transitions from the 2.0 spec?

There weren't any plans until I read your post :-). It seems that any
local transition can always be converted to an external transition or an
in-state reaction. The only benefit I see is improved performance (one
state exit & entry less) under IME rare circumstances. So, the question
is: How often do you use such transitions?

> Tests with deep history produce a static assertion if you attempt to
> transition to history of a containing state. UML 2.0 explicitly
> permits this.

I disallowed such transitions because they don't seem to make sense and
there was no indication that they are allowed under UML 1.5. IIUC, such
a transition would simply leave & reenter the current state, right? If
so, what good is history for when the same effect can be achieved by
simply giving the state a normal transition to itself?

> Are there any plans to modify the library to permit
> this?

If there are compelling use cases I'd certainly add both features ASAP.

Thanks for the feedback!


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

Boost-users list run by williamkempf at, kalb at, bjorn.karlsson at, gregod at, wekempf at