W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-voice@w3.org > January to March 2013

RE: ISSUE-826 Re: More Problems with Preemption

From: Jim Barnett <Jim.Barnett@genesyslab.com>
Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2013 15:07:18 +0000
To: chris nuernberger <cnuernber@gmail.com>
CC: "www-voice@w3.org" <www-voice@w3.org>
Message-ID: <57A15FAF9E58F841B2B1651FFE16D28101F7E4@GENSJZMBX03.msg.int.genesyslab.com>
Speed is not an issue in the algorithm, since implementations are only required to behave _as if_ they are implementing the algorithm in the spec.  There are all sorts of places where the spec algorithm can be optimized (it calculates certain values over and over again, instead of caching them.  And you wouldn't bother with  filterPreempted at all if you only had a single transition.)

I think that the advantage of the version that I proposed is that it is very close to the normative wording of the spec, which is in turn taken from UML, with which we try to stay consistent.

-          Jim

From: chris nuernberger [mailto:cnuernber@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, February 08, 2013 10:02 AM
To: Jim Barnett
Cc: www-voice@w3.org
Subject: Re: ISSUE-826 Re: More Problems with Preemption

In which cases would this algorithm differ from the one I proposed?

The one I proposed is far faster.

Received on Friday, 8 February 2013 15:07:47 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:07:43 UTC