Re: updated SCXML draft

I think there are possible problems with the enter state algorithm
depending on how insanely people use initial.  A limited initial that could
only address direct children of the current node would eliminate this but
without that a sufficiently insane initial config combined with a
multitarget transition could put the state machine into configurations
where multiple states are active under the same non parallel state.

The potential problem is that the algorithm completely activates parallels
before running all the targets in a transition.  So someone could
potentially construct a transition that causes the parallel to activate
using its initial configuration with the first target and then the next
target in the transition would activate a specific non-initial state
underneath the parallel.

I don't know if the list cares or not and I do not propose immediately an
algorithm to address this.  It would need to two-pass per transition, and
it would be more verbose than the current algorithm.

This transition couldn't in and of itself be considered invalid because,
without interleaving initial activations into target activates it wouldn't
cause an invalid state.  But the combination of state initial settings
interleaved with target activations could potentially cause a state machine
built using the provided algorithm to be in two states in a non-parallel
subgraph.

Chris


On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 11:37 AM, Jim Barnett <Jim.Barnett@genesyslab.com>wrote:

>  W3C Process requires us to record and track all issues raised by the
> public once we reach Last Call Working Draft status.  The discussion on
> this list has been so active over the last few months that it is hard to
> track individual ‘issues’.   Therefore I have decided that the best thing
> to do is to post a draft containing all the revisions that I have made due
> to the discussions (along with a diffed version, to make it easy to locate
> the changes.)   This is not an official publication, but a preview of the
> next draft.  ****
>
> ** **
>
> I would like to ask anyone who has commented in the last few months to
> take a look at the draft and let me know if:****
>
> **1.       ** This draft has addressed your concerns, or****
>
> **2.       **If there are specific issues that you think have not been
> adequately addressed****
>
> ** **
>
> If I don’t hear from you (i.e., from a specific commenter) within two
> weeks, I will assume that the draft has addressed your issues and that you
> are willing to let the specification proceed towards Recommendation status
> in its current form.   (Please note that issues about the test suite or
> possible standard implementations are not relevant here.  We are just
> concerned with the specification as a document.)  ****
>
> ** **
>
> Basically, now is the time to speak up if you want to keep an issue open.
> You will certainly have further opportunity to comment once this draft is
> officially published, but I think that we can get to Recommendation faster
> if we can handle the issues that have already been raised before we publish
> another public draft (which will also be called “Last Call Working Draft”).
> ****
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> Here is the new draft:  http://www.w3.org/Voice/2013/scxml-irp/SCXML.htm *
> ***
>
> Here is a diffed version:
> http://www.w3.org/Voice/2013/scxml-irp/SCXML_Diff.htm  (There are changes
> throughout the document, but there’s a heavy concentration of them in the
> algorithm and ECMAScript data model.)****
>
> ** **
>
> Let me know if you have problems accessing either of these docs.  ****
>
> ** **
>
> **-          **Jim****
>
> ** **
>



-- 
A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds - Emerson