- From: Mathews, Walden <walden.mathews@tfn.com>
- Date: Sun, 20 Oct 2002 07:57:46 -0400
- To: "'Paul Prescod '" <paul@prescod.net>, "'David Orchard '" <dorchard@bea.com>
- Cc: "''bhaugen' '" <linkage@interaccess.com>, "'www-ws-arch@w3.org '" <www-ws-arch@w3.org>
Paul, >I strongly agree. So that's why I'm wondering how is: > >preconditions + postconditions + state machines > >better (simpler, faster, in ANY WAY BETTER) than > >preconditions + postconditions > >I don't get it. There's a lot of overlap in that. A state is a set of (pre) conditions. A guard is just a small elaboration of a precondition. All that's left is the event (trigger). Are you saying that the mention of events in such a model adds an unacceptable complexity? I wouldn't think so. I think the "state machine" is closer to what you are proposing than it is to the procedural alternative. Walden
Received on Sunday, 20 October 2002 07:58:30 UTC