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

RE: It would be a lot cooler if:

From: Jim Barnett <Jim.Barnett@genesyslab.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2013 20:13:43 +0000
To: chris nuernberger <cnuernber@gmail.com>, "VBWG Public (www-voice@w3.org)" <www-voice@w3.org>
Message-ID: <57A15FAF9E58F841B2B1651FFE16D281020843@GENSJZMBX03.msg.int.genesyslab.com>
Chris,
The point of the pseudo-code is to  clarify the intended semantics, which is easier if you don't have to worry about language-specific implementation details.  There are open source implementations that people can examine, including one in Javascript.  I agree that we need to publish our set of tests, which we are working on.  Once we do, and the open source implementations run them, everyone will have access to: pseudo-code, running code, and tests.


-          Jim

From: chris nuernberger [mailto:cnuernber@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2013 1:06 PM
To: VBWG Public (www-voice@w3.org)
Subject: It would be a lot cooler if:

1.  The pseudocode was a reference implementation in javascript.
2.  Hosted on github or gittorious.
3.  Ran a set of accepted SCXML tests.
4.  We could then all propose refactoring and such with pull requests and discuss them and we would know if things were working or not pretty quickly.

We can't be all that far from this.  I bet it would take all of like 3-4 days of work and I thought someone already had a reference implementation somewhere.  I think a lot of problems with the pseudocode would be better discussed with a failing test than with theoretical observations.


Chris

--
A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds - Emerson
Received on Wednesday, 13 February 2013 20:14:15 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 13 February 2013 20:14:20 GMT