W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-voice@w3.org > January to March 2007

Re: SCXML: Conflict definition

From: Serge Voloshenyuk <serge_voloshenyuk@yahoo.com>
Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2007 19:48:12 -0700 (PDT)
To: www-voice@w3.org
Message-ID: <108816.66320.qm@web34304.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Other variant for the same example:

<scxml xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/07/scxml"  version="1.0"
       initialstate="prl">

    <parallel id="prl">
       <state id="p1">
          <initial>
              <transition target="p1_1"/>
          </initial>
          <state id="p1_1">
              <transition event="prl.done"  target="end1"/>
          </state>
       </state>
       <state id="p2">
          <initial>
            <transition target="p2_1"/>
          </initial>
          <state id="p2_1">
              <transition event="prl.done"   target="end2"/>
          </state>
       </state>
    </parallel>
    <state id="end1">
      <initial>
       <transition target="end1_1"/>
      </initial>
      <state id="end1_1"/>
      <state id="end2"/>
    </state>
</scxml>

Now it's not conflict semantically.
Because second transition can be treated as more precise targeting compare to first which target is more generalized.

But final states are different.
And what about actions? Must they be called both or only one?
Then which, first or second?
I don't think that document order must be considered here.
In first because there is some semantical  sense behind.
And in second graphical visualization of SCXML will conceal document order.

 
---------------------------------
Bored stiff? Loosen up...
Download and play hundreds of games for free on Yahoo! Games.
Received on Friday, 23 March 2007 02:48:16 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 23 March 2007 02:48:18 GMT