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

Subject: SDL-News: Fwd: Re: [SDLTF-Members] SAVE: Request for additional feedback
From: William H. Skelton (
Date: Fri Jan 09 2004 - 09:03:58 GMT

Become an SDL Forum Society member <>
The originator of this message is responsible for its content.
-----From "William H. Skelton" <> to sdlnews -----

Dear Colleagues,

I have sent a private email to Andreas regarding these points, which have
already been covered in previous emails.

For people following this on SDL-News, please note that not all comments
are being copied to the SDL-News mail exploder, so if you answer one of
these, remember you are only getting part of the picture.

Please register at if want to take part in the


>Date: Fri, 09 Jan 2004 09:02:31 +0100
>From: Andreas Prinz <>
>User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.5)
>X-Accept-Language: de, en-us, en, no
>Subject: Re: [SDLTF-Members] SAVE: Request for additional feedback
>X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.0 required=5.0
> autolearn=ham version=2.55
>X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.55 (
>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,
> Andreas
>Prof. Andreas Prinz
>Agder University College
>Open Systems Development Group
>Tel: +47 3725 3220

William H. Skelton, Engineering Dept.
SOLINET GmbH Solutions for Innovative Networks
Mittlerer Pfad 26, 70499 Stuttgart, Germany
Tel +49 711 1398 1377, Fax +49 711 866 1240
Mobile +49 171 247 6688,

--End text from "William H. Skelton" <> 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