Le 02/02/2016 19:19, Vicente J. Botet Escriba a écrit :
Hi Christophe,
Thank you very much for your feedback and time. I appreciate it a lot.
Yea, I like having everything visible on the transition table and therefore I put initial states as well entry/exit actions there. I know you have a different view on that, however, I find it easier to follow this way.
Declare events on the fly its easy to do, however, I don't think it will bring much value as events can be accessed outside the transition table as well as they, most likely, will hold some data. Therefore, I'm not sure about it. Might be useful to have both options tho.
I would love to compare MSM-lite/MSM-eUML to eUML2, however I haven't seen it yet besides some code in the emails. Can you share a link to the eUML2 version, please? I will defo add benchmarks for it.
I don't see any problem with that as MSM-lite is open source. I also offer my help in designing and/or coding. Hi, IIUC you are proposing a 3rd MSM library in Boost, and you don't
Le 01/02/2016 11:57, Kris a écrit : pretend to make it a sub-library of Boost.MSM. If I'm right, I suggest you to rename the namespace to msm_lite or whatever you find more appropriated.
Well, I would like to keep the core of the library as small as possible as in my experience a lot of users are actually not using as many features. Having said that, I have no problems adding new features via policies/extensions. Moreover, MSM-lite is already used in some of the top growing mobile games, but yea, I do agree that some users would like to see more features. Anyway, are there any specific features you are talking about which are so essential. I know that defer/history might be useful, but I don't see much more features in MSM, besides explicit/fork states? Well these are already quite a few features. I have not see local
BTW, with the figures you gave I believe that there would be an interest in your library. transitions (different from internal transitions).
Please could you point me if you support choice points? Oh, I see that you have anonymous transitions.
I see that MSM eUML defines the transitions like target == source + event [guard] / action but MSM-lite reverse the source and target src_state == dst_state + event[ guard ] / action This is confusing. Why have you chosen this syntax? Vicente