Subject: SDL-News: Flushing the SAVEd signals
From: Andreas Prinz (Andreas.Prinz#hia.no)
Date: Fri Jan 09 2004 - 07:43:02 GMT
Become an SDL Forum Society member <http://www.sdl-forum.org/Society/members.htm>
The originator of this message is responsible for its content.
-----From Andreas Prinz <Andreas.Prinz#hia.no> to sdlnews -----
William H. Skelton wrote:
> A problem has been identified that there is no atomic way to flush
> signals that have been saved. For example, if a signal E1 is saved,
> then E2 arrives causes a reset of the state machine, then another E1
> arrives, there is no way to flush at the time of the reset the saved E1
> without losing the new E1.
As some people pointed out, it is very simple to flush *all* E1 signals
in the input buffer. This is also the way I would think a state machine
should work: either it is able to handle a signal, or is is not.
As Susanne said, making a difference between signals according to some
timed criterion is a new requirement, probably independent of SAVE.
However, I am not going to buy this requirement. Is there a convincing
example why this kind of "flushing" is necessary in the subset?
In all the projects I worked with, it was not necessary.
-- Prof. Andreas Prinz Agder University College Open Systems Development Group Tel: +47 3725 3220 mailto: Andreas.Prinz#HIA.no
--End text from Andreas Prinz <Andreas.Prinz#hia.no> to sdlnews --- For extra SDL Forum Society benefits join at <http://www.sdl-forum.org/Society/members.htm>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2a23 : Thu May 09 2013 - 16:05:50 GMT