W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-voice@w3.org > April to June 2008

Event handling problem

From: Stefan Maton <maton@sidema.be>
Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2008 09:38:46 +0200
To: <www-voice@w3.org>
Message-ID: <000601c8cc5f$5c177620$14466260$@be>
Hi everyone,


My SCXML C++ implementation has gone public and I already have a problem
which is not easy to solve. In fact it’s a little bit more tricky to explain
because it's related to the way the events are handled within the state


Let's lay out what one would like to do:


a) A user presses a button.

b) The button generates an event, which is injected into the state machine.

c) You call startEventLoop in the state machine.

d) The state machine handles the event, triggering the a <send>-tag one has
put into his scxml.

e) The <send>-tag injects the event into the state machine.

f) The state machine should handle the newly injected event.


Let's lay out how my SSCXML works:


I) a) and b) occur. c) is called.

II) The state machine first checks all transitions that don't need any

III) d) is done -> any event is handled. This is done by first handling all
events in the internal event queue and then handling all events in the
external event queue.

IV) During III) your <send>-tag injects the event. This event is put into a
list representing the "new" part of the external event queue (note that if
you specify "scxml" as targettype, the event is put into a list representing
the "new" part of the internal event queue).

V) Once all events have been handled, the "new" part queues are merged with
their "current" queue counterpart.

VI) The update finishes.


What is the result of this way of handling the event queue? Well... if you
inject a new event during the current frame, the event is put into a "new
events" list. Once all current frame events are handled, the "new events"
list is merged with the "current frame" list. The new events are *not*
handled in the current frame. They will be handled ONE frame later (next
update call).


In fact, this is the way the previous SCXML draft stated the handling. One
had to merge the new events with the old ones at the end of the update. At
least that’s how I understood it.


Since I implemented the event handling before the new draft was put online,
SSCXML has the old handling.


Now the current draft states this: The update function has to loop
internally, until no internal and external events are left (unless they're
timed events in which case the state machine may ignore them to determine
whether to continue the loop or not) and until no more transitions can be


Now, what does that mean? This means 2 things:


1. If you have states that have transitions which are i.e. condition less,
they are always triggered, keeping the state machine busy forever.


Example (shortened for more clarity):

<state id="root">

  <state id="1">

    <transition target="2" />


  <state id="2">

    <transition target="1" />



The above example would create an infinite loop in the state machine,
resulting in never coming back, freezing your application within the update
of the state machine.


2. Imagine your state machine is set up in a way that you send an event. And
that event would be put directly into the event queue resulting into the
event being handled within the same frame. Now, due to this event a
transition is triggered which contains a <send> itself, resulting in putting
it into the event queue. That <send> in fact is re-triggering the first
<transition> containing the first <send>... it's basically the same example
as the first example but only with <send> tags. Your state machine would
freeze within the update function.


I must admit that I came across this problem only today because I didn't
re-read the drafts new event handling algorithm. But as you can see, the new
way raises some problems.


In my current implementation the new event is handled 1 frame later (which
might and will create some delay in reaction to those events). This will not
freeze the entire application within an update of the state machine but will
let run the rest of the application as expected. The “only drawback” is the


Perhaps I have misunderstood your algorithm, but I don’t think so. How would
the current algorithm handle those infinite loop situations?







Rue Lefin 4, 4860 Pepinster, Belgique

Web: http://www.sidema.be

Email: maton@sidema.be

GSM: ++32 (0)494 / 11.53.65

TVA BE 0713.367.395

Received on Thursday, 12 June 2008 07:39:36 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:07:40 UTC