Re: ISSUE-826 Re: More Problems with Preemption

OK, I can buy that although I do think it is odd to propose an algorithm
that is demonstrably less efficient.  I guess I just find this definition
much clearer:

Arena Orthogonal : Two transition occurrences are included in the same
small-step only if their arenas are orthogonal, where the arena of a
transition is the smallest (lowest in the hierarchy of the composition
tree) Or-state that is the (grand)parent of the source and destination
control states of the transition.

Obviously that would be the transition arena would be defined by the
transition subgraph root.

This is also the definition used in the white paper linked to from SCION's
comparison page.

Is it possible that transactions with non-conflicting exit sets would have
conflicting entry sets?

Chris


On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 8:07 AM, Jim Barnett <Jim.Barnett@genesyslab.com>wrote:

>  Speed is not an issue in the algorithm, since implementations are only
> required to behave _*as if*_ they are implementing the algorithm in the
> spec.  There are all sorts of places where the spec algorithm can be
> optimized (it calculates certain values over and over again, instead of
> caching them.  And you wouldn’t bother with  filterPreempted at all if you
> only had a single transition.)****
>
> ** **
>
> I think that the advantage of the version that I proposed is that it is
> very close to the normative wording of the spec, which is in turn taken
> from UML, with which we try to stay consistent.  ****
>
> ** **
>
> **-          **Jim****
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* chris nuernberger [mailto:cnuernber@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Friday, February 08, 2013 10:02 AM
> *To:* Jim Barnett
> *Cc:* www-voice@w3.org
> *Subject:* Re: ISSUE-826 Re: More Problems with Preemption****
>
> ** **
>
> In which cases would this algorithm differ from the one I proposed?  ****
>
> ** **
>
> The one I proposed is far faster.****
>
> ** **
>
> Chris****
>



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