SDL-News: Re: [SDLTF-Members] SAVE: Request for additional feedback

Subject: SDL-News: Re: [SDLTF-Members] SAVE: Request for additional feedback
From: Andreas Prinz (
Date: Fri Jan 09 2004 - 08:02:31 GMT

Become an SDL Forum Society member <>
The originator of this message is responsible for its content.
-----From Andreas Prinz <> to sdlnews -----

Dear all,
William H. Skelton wrote:
> So far, no example has been presented that shows why save is essential.
> Some examples have come close; for example, Andreas Prinz, Qing Li,
> Alkis Yiannakoulias, Rick Reed, Susanne Graf and others have presented
> examples addressing specific ways save seems to be useful. These are in
> summary:

Actually, I do not understand the summary below. Are you saying, that
some way to express these situations in the subset would be necessary?
If yes, then why is this not a justification for SAVE? If no, then why
are you trying to express them in other ways?

> 1) To handle the processing of signals that may arrive in an arbitrary
> order -> under discussion if other constructs may be more suitable.

Do you mean other SDL constructs or new constructs?

> 2) The deferred processing of signals not covered by a procedure ->
> under discussion from the view point that the way procedures are used
> may not be clean.

I would like to take part in this discussion. Is it going to be in the
taskforce mailing group?

> 3) The buffering of application data, while waiting for an event to
> happen (i.e. activation of a data link) -> under discussion if SEQUENCE
> OF may be a better way to do this.

Actually, "better" is not the correct word. As the discussion showed,
*both* ways (SAVE or SEQUENCE) would solve the problem. The reason for
you to prefer SEQUENCE is simply because it happens to be already in the
subset whereas SAVE is not. Or did I miss something?

> In conclusion, although there is a strong interest in save, unless there
> is a technical justification presented as an essential need for a
> specific situation, it will not be part of the subset. In particular it
> would be very helpful and much appreciated, if those people with such a
> broad experience, such as Laurent Doldi, could identify the key points
> why save is needed, and contribute to the other issues at the same time.

Would you be able to qualify a bit what is meant by "technical
justification"? Some people were trying all the time to provide
something like this, but all of the arguments were not sufficient for
you. What do you need to be convinced?
Maybe it would be helpful if we turned the discussion upside-down, i.e.
we assume the current state was the SAVE was in the subset and you
convinced us that it was not necessary.

All the best,

Prof. Andreas Prinz
Agder University College
Open Systems Development Group
Tel: +47 3725 3220

--End text from Andreas Prinz <> to sdlnews --- For extra SDL Forum Society benefits join at <>

This archive was generated by hypermail 2a23 : Thu May 09 2013 - 16:05:50 GMT