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

Re: revisiting preemption

From: chris nuernberger <cnuernber@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2013 11:13:34 -0700
Message-ID: <CAG=GWveJxonQY5EBm23QKCt5Bn72oWO=O2e8yJNQ84hVGuF_cg@mail.gmail.com>
To: David Junger <tffy@free.fr>
Cc: "VBWG Public (www-voice@w3.org)" <www-voice@w3.org>
"The most intuitive (and shortest to explain) is that optimally-enabled
transitions are taken in transition order unless their source has been
exited by a previous transition, in which case their are disabled during
the exit step. But that's not UML-compatible."

This would also be the most efficient to implement.  Taking targetless
transitions into account means you have to consider all atoms regardless of
if they would be exited.  I would rather for a possibly very efficient
implementation than a UML compatible implementation although of course I
can offer that as an option in my library.

I don't understand the push for UML compatibility and it isn't a
requirement for our implementation.

Are there any existing implementations of SCXML which require UML
compatibility?

Honestly I am happy whichever way this goes; although of course I tend
towards a specification which enables optimal implementation efficiency so
the widest range of applications can benefit from this system.

Chris


On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 10:46 AM, David Junger <tffy@free.fr> wrote:

> Le 18 feb 2013 ŗ 15:58, Jim Barnett a ťcrit :
>
> 1.       Do we want another definition of preemption?  The obvious
> candidate is UMLís definition:  two transitions conflict if their exit sets
> have a non-null intersection. We can tweak the definition based on
> transition classes/types to have the same semantics, so the real question
> is:  which definition is easier to understand?
>
>
> The most intuitive (and shortest to explain) is that optimally-enabled
> transitions are taken in transition order unless their source has been
> exited by a previous transition, in which case their are disabled during
> the exit step. But that's not UML-compatible.
>
> If you want UML-compatible transitions, then, first sort the
> optimaly-enabled transitions according to this comparator(t1, t2):
> tie if t1 is targetless and t2 is targetless.
> t1 < t2 if t1 is targetless.
> t2 < t1 if t2 is targetless.
> t1 < t2 if t1's LCCA is a descendant of t2's LCCA.
> t2 < t1 if t2's LCCA is a descendant of t1's LCCA.
> tie otherwise.
>
> use transition order (or document order, which is equivalent at this
> point) to break ties (though that's unnecessary if you use a stable sort).
>
> Then proceed as before, i.e. optimally-enabled transitions are taken in
> that order unless their source has been exited by a previous transition, in
> which case they are disabled during the exit step.
>
> Note that this total ordering of the SC's transitions does not change
> depending on which transitions are enabled, so it can be compiled.
>
>
> ****
> 2.       What do we want to do about targetless transitions?  They have
> an empty exit set, so on the UML definition they donít preempt any
> transitions and donít preempt any other transitions.  The existing
> definition (based on transition types/classes) says (in effect) that a
> targetless transition is preempted by any preceding transition that exits
> its source state.  This may seem intuitively clear, but it isnít necessary
> by any means.  The whole point of preemption is to block transition sets
> that could produce an illegal configuration, and targetless transitions
> will never do that.   By not preempting targetless transitions, we end up
> with the largest set of transitions that can be guaranteed not to cause
> problems.
>
>
> Agreed, though it might be less intuitive, I don't think it's horribly
> confusing to say that targetless transitions get priority. But we also have
> to define the transition's execution order (for determinism). If they can't
> be preempted then they should be executed before all others.
>
>
> ****
> 3.       When we discussed this issue in the past, we decided that
> preemption is so complicated that it should be defined in a separate place,
> hence we have ĎfilterPreemptedí as a separate function.  On the other hand,
> the filtering could be folded  back into the selectTransitions functions,
> particularly if it is based on the intersection of exitSets.   So we could
> consider getting rid of filterPreempted as a separate function.  However,
> if we do this, we have to insert the same conflict/preemption-detecting
> logic in both selectEventlessTransitions and selectTransitions, so it may
> be better to keep it factored out into a  separate function.****
>
>
> I believe my comparator proposal solves that. You just need a quick test
> in the exit step to check if the transition's source is still active.
>
> David
>



-- 
A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds - Emerson
Received on Monday, 18 February 2013 18:26:59 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 18 February 2013 18:27:02 GMT