Re: Syntax of transitions

"Clive D.W. Feather" <clive@demon.net> Thu, 11 January 2007 14:51 UTC

Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1H51Gk-00087F-Dn; Thu, 11 Jan 2007 09:51:06 -0500
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1H51Gj-00083X-GT for cosmogol@ietf.org; Thu, 11 Jan 2007 09:51:05 -0500
Received: from anchor-internal-1.mail.demon.net ([195.173.56.100]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1H51Gf-00032s-3I for cosmogol@ietf.org; Thu, 11 Jan 2007 09:51:05 -0500
Received: from finch-staff-1.server.demon.net (finch-staff-1.server.demon.net [193.195.224.1]) by anchor-internal-1.mail.demon.net with ESMTP� id l0BEowXu025818Thu, 11 Jan 2007 14:50:58 GMT
Received: from clive by finch-staff-1.server.demon.net with local (Exim 3.36 #1) id 1H51Gb-0008LR-00; Thu, 11 Jan 2007 14:50:57 +0000
Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2007 14:50:57 +0000
From: "Clive D.W. Feather" <clive@demon.net>
To: Frank Ellermann <nobody@xyzzy.claranet.de>
Message-ID: <20070111145057.GE24072@finch-staff-1.thus.net>
References: <20070108162900.GA66689@finch-staff-1.thus.net> <20070109221042.GC28340@sources.org> <45A56A51.2874@xyzzy.claranet.de>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <45A56A51.2874@xyzzy.claranet.de>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.3i
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 9ed51c9d1356100bce94f1ae4ec616a9
Cc: cosmogol@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Syntax of transitions
X-BeenThere: cosmogol@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: DIscussion on state machine specification in IETF protocols <cosmogol.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cosmogol>, <mailto:cosmogol-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www1.ietf.org/pipermail/cosmogol>
List-Post: <mailto:cosmogol@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:cosmogol-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cosmogol>, <mailto:cosmogol-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: cosmogol-bounces@ietf.org

Frank Ellermann said:
>>> is there any reason to forbid multiple actions?
>> No, no good reasons, and protocols like SIP or SCTP
>> really need multiple actions.
> A good reason would be KISS, you can split sequential
> actions using intermediary states,

You *can*, but in some cases it will obscure matters to no good end.
I'd rather have an "only one action" flag for interpreters.

> and you want the
> states written into lines with 69 characters.

Non-sequitor.

> But if the actions are simultaneously, or their order
> is irrelevant it's less clear.  If some of the actions
> (almost) always occur together you could get away with
> named sets of states.

I don't follow this either.

> Maybe introducing named sets of either states, or
> messsages, or actions makes sense.  With that you'd
> get "state or named set of states", "message or named
> set of messages", and "action or named set of actions",
> and a general concept of named sets.  Is that better ?

Named sets is an interesting extension:

    SET problems = error, warning, delay ;

but it's not really relevant to the question. I want to be able to write:

    Signal1 @ IDLE -> BUSY : "Send 101", connectSubscriber ;

without having to invent a set just to contain these two actions.

-- 
Clive D.W. Feather  | Work:  <clive@demon.net>   | Tel:    +44 20 8495 6138
Internet Expert     | Home:  <clive@davros.org>  | Fax:    +44 870 051 9937
Demon Internet      | WWW: http://www.davros.org | Mobile: +44 7973 377646
THUS plc            |                            |

_______________________________________________
Cosmogol mailing list
Cosmogol@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cosmogol