W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-archive@w3.org > January 2002

RE: FW: TBTF: Trace Bindings - wire view v requester/responder vi ew.

From: Williams, Stuart <skw@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2002 11:03:53 -0000
Message-ID: <5E13A1874524D411A876006008CD059F1928B3@0-mail-1.hpl.hp.com>
To: "'Noah Mendelsohn'" <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>
Cc: "chris.ferris" <chris.ferris@east.sun.com>, distobj <distobj@acm.org>, gdaniels <gdaniels@macromedia.com>, henrikn <henrikn@microsoft.com>, "highland.m.mountain" <highland.m.mountain@intel.com>, jones <jones@research.att.com>, "marc.hadley" <marc.hadley@uk.sun.com>, ohurley <ohurley@iona.com>, www-archive <www-archive@w3.org>
Hi Noah,

> Are we making progress?  Thanks very much.

I think so... I think that we're getting to the point of more clearly seeing
the choices.

Ironically, from the triple you suggest I'd probably omit the traces...
because some states can be arrived at by multiple paths and for mor complex
machines than requets/response there can be indeterminately many of
indeterminate length (due to cyclical behaviours on the machine - simple eg.
request/n-response - one could do traces from some state that marks the
start of a repeat).

So I think that your suggestion amounts to using the algebra to describe
input/next and tables to describe next-state/action for each state.

It could work... but it may just be clear to stick with the tables rather
than mixing the styles.

My leaning at the moment is toward playing safe and using the tabular
presentation (Jean-Jacques will be pleased!).

Best regards and thanks,

Stuart

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Noah Mendelsohn [mailto:noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com]
> Sent: 17 January 2002 22:59
> To: skw@hplb.hpl.hp.com
> Cc: chris.ferris; distobj; gdaniels; henrikn; highland.m.mountain;
> jones; marc.hadley; ohurley; www-archive
> Subject: RE: FW: TBTF: Trace Bindings - wire view v 
> requester/responder
> vi ew.
> 
> 
> Since you asked for my opinion specifically, here is what I am thinking 
> (following your convention, I'm also attaching a .txt file, in case the 
> e-mail itself has any wrapping problems):
> 
> I think that each of these iterations has made the trace based approach 
> more promising.  On the other hand, I'm still not sure we've turned the 
> corner to where we have a presentation that I believe would be simple and 
> comprehensible, especially for novice readers.  The choices are exactly 
> the ones you've outlined at the end: go back to the status quo, or keep 
> working on this.  I am willing to put a little more effort into exploring 
> this option, if you are, but I still think we have to assume the status 
> quo until this approach reaches a level of polish where everybody feels 
> good about it.
> 
> It feels to me like the right balance might be to use some of the 
> formalism, but not to carry it all the way down to the properties.  Would 
> it makes sense to do something like the following:
> 
> * Outline the traces on the wire using the algebraic notation, more or 
> less as you have been proposing right along.  Do not include the local 
> state properties at this level.
> 
> * Describe each state with a triple.  This would be a simple English state

> name such as "Sending Request" as we have today (I like this better than 
> S1, S2), a list of the trace fragments that characterize the inbound 
> edges, and an informal English description.  See below for an
illustration.
> 
> * Keep the named typed properties and operational descriptions that we 
> have in our existing working draft.  Put these in a table immediately 
> below the triple.  The result would be something along the lines of:
> 
>       *************************Description of State "Sending
Request"********************
>         State name: Sending Request
>         Traces leading to this state: 
>                    eoReq.S2 + 			 //Finished sending
Request
>                   !soResp.receiving.S3 +       //Start of overlapping
response
>               !channelfail.Fail +              //Channel/media failure
>               !localException.Fail             //Local Timeout or reason
to abort
>         Description:  Requesting node begins transmission of request
> 
>  
>
============================================================================
=============
>     | Next State   |       Action
|
>     |   Fail       |   Set "transport:FailureReason" to
"transmissionFailure"  |
>     |   Waiting    |
|
>
============================================================================
=============
>       *************************End Description of State "Sending
Request"*****************
> 
> I don't think the actual traces line up with the action illustrated, but 
> the idea is that the traces would illustrate the different means by which 
> one can enter the state.
> 
> I still feel like I'm missing something, but I'm trying to put in enough 
> plain English and formatting, and put the traces in a context where even 
> novices will have a sense of their purpose.  I think I would find
> something like this easier than: 
> 
>
!soHTTPResp(status==200,responder=x).setProperty(transport:ImmediateSender=x
> ).receiving.SentAndReceiving +
> !soHTTPResp(status==202,responder=x).setProperty(transport:Imm
> ediateSender=x)....+
> !soHTTPResp(status==500,responder=x).setProperty(transport:Fau
> ltHint,true).
>         setProperty(transport:ImmediateSender=x).SentAndReceiving
>         + !soHTTPResp(
>         + ...
> 
> Are we making progress?  Thanks very much.
> 
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> Noah Mendelsohn                              Voice: 1-617-693-4036
> IBM Corporation                                Fax: 1-617-693-8676
> One Rogers Street
> Cambridge, MA 02142
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
Received on Friday, 18 January 2002 06:05:02 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 7 November 2012 14:17:16 GMT