commons-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Rahul Akolkar" <>
Subject Re: SCXML question: state reduction implementation?
Date Mon, 25 Aug 2008 17:08:32 GMT
On Fri, Aug 22, 2008 at 1:16 PM, J.-F. Rompre <> wrote:
> Hello,
> My apologies if this is already provided, but I couldn't find it in the
> current docs/FAQs/tutorials I looked at on the project site.
> Are the states internally reduced/optimized whenever possible ?

No attempt is made at any reduction or optimization.

> If, so
> ideally this would be transparent to the client code/XML for verification
> purposes.

Yes, there are a host of considerations:
 * Transparency (as you indicate above)
 * Predictability (rules would have to be well documented)
 * Round-tripping (reduced vs. authored versions)
 * Semantics equivalence (proofs thereof)
 * Debugging
 * etc. (not a complete list)

> As an example, an XML describing 100 states and many more possible
> transitions, might be reduced to 30 states, but
> no source XML changes would be needed (e.g. translation between defined and
> optimized might occur in the Bridge).


> If not done internally, that would be a great capability to add, and would
> allow Domain specifications to remain expressive.

I suspect it is a modest amount of work, and there are no plans to do
this within Commons SCXML. If someone else wants to do it and
contribute back [1], we'd be happy to consider it as an enhancement.
We'd probably need a basic mechanism to specify the domain specific
reduction "rules" and a pre-parser to apply the rules (could be part
of the bridging code as you mention or a more first-class notion
within the library), while keeping the above considerations in mind to
provide a reasonable development experience.



> Thank you,
> JF

To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message