W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-voice@w3.org > January to March 2014

Re: Suggestions for onentry/onexit tags

From: Andreas Gansen <c64zottel@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2014 10:27:23 +0100
Message-ID: <52E777FB.2050301@gmail.com>
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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:07:44 UTC