The terminology tutorial is excellent. Thanks - that's helpful. So my question should have been:
Has any thought been given to the protocol(s) necessary to use the FSM library for building systems (by Scott's definition). > DOT That was a little bit of tongue in cheek. Not entirely a serious comment. Not entirely. DOT is used to describe graphs and the BGL has facility to read and write in DOT format (and the AT&T docs on DOT are complete). I've been on a "if it can be modeled as a graph, use the BGL" kick lately. "Scott Woods" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Hi Chris and Andreas, > > Have been listening but havent had anything to add. Now have about > 0.02 worth... > > <snip> > > I read through the documentation but haven't tried coding against the > > library yet. It looks quite useful for building isolated FSM mechanisms. I > > observe in my own work that I typically have many FSM that interact with > > each other. It could be argued that this is really just one large FSM, but > I > > like to think of them in terms of discrete FSM that interact with each > other > > because it makes it easier to conceptualize class structure, threading, > and > > occasionally inter-process or in the case of a distributed application, > > inter-system partitioning. > > If I can offer some terminology (not mine but a mish-mash of SDL and > others); > * a FSM is a discrete, hermeticically sealed (like that) state machine > * a collection of co-operating FSMs is a system > * FSMs in a system interact by exchanging events > * an exchange of events is known as a protocol. > > <snip> > > I'm not a big UML fan so this aspect of the submission troubles me a > little. > > Do we have a lot of UML fans here? I would be happier if it imported AT&T > > GraphViz DOT or some other format that explicitly deals with the directed > > graph nature of FSM. But that's probably going to be an unpopular idea > > because it begs the question why not use the BGL then? > > Not a UML fan. That is, UML isnt at all bad but have had SDL forced on > me by the ITU and now feel it has a narrower (and more successful) focus > on FSM systems (AKA "signaling" in SDL). Now I also have to check out > DOT... > > Keep it going, > SW > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost > _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
