- From: chris nuernberger <cnuernber@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2013 08:28:19 -0700
- To: Jim Barnett <Jim.Barnett@genesyslab.com>
- Cc: "www-voice@w3.org" <www-voice@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAG=GWvdKpLuhFM0Z3OH6RCZPEsY8Yv5VhAXiYTe3N7x0o+efPw@mail.gmail.com>
Actually, I think there is one solid difference not take into account by your algorithm. The algorithm I proposed will correctly preempt any targetless transitions in exit set. Your algorithm will not without modification. Chris On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 8:13 AM, chris nuernberger <cnuernber@gmail.com>wrote: > 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 > -- A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds - Emerson
Received on Friday, 8 February 2013 15:28:46 UTC