- From: Andreas Gansen <c64zottel@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2014 10:27:23 +0100
- To: www-voice@w3.org
Hello David, Jim and List,
I am so sorry for not responding. I promise to do much better in the future.
Your reasoning is completely valid and understood. My only concern is
the semantic about onexit/onentry.
Even if it is well defined in the current version, I can't deny that it
is a bit unnatural to call a second onexit block
My suggestions to combine functionality and modularity would be as follows:
<onentry>
<action> Code of the first onentry block </action>
<action> ... 2nd entry block </action>
</onentry>
Variation:
Define actions in LLCA (or separate file for re-usage):
<actions>
<action id="a1"> Codeblock </action>
<action id="a2"> Codeblock </action>
</actions>
We just reference to the actions:
<onentry>
<action id="a1" />
<action id="a2" />
</onentry>
From here we have a couple of advantages:
- Code block may be reused in the same file
- We may define all code blocks for onentry/onexit in separate file and
share this between different statecharts.
- The semantic is a bit cleaner (Maybe that is a personal view)
I am very aware of my inexperience when it comes to xml/statecharts and
I am fine with what ever solution you come up with.
Again, I am sorry for not responding. That is not my general being.
All the best,
Andreas Gansen
Received on Tuesday, 28 January 2014 09:28:14 UTC