Subject: SDL-News: RE: [SDLTF-Members] Flushing the SAVEd signals (forwarded by Rick Reed)
From: Rick Reed TSE (rickreed#tseng.co.uk)
Date: Sat Jan 10 2004 - 12:38:54 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 Rick Reed TSE <rickreed#tseng.co.uk> to sdlnews -----
From: Anthony Weber <weberaa#worldnet.att.net>
Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2004 10:50:51 -0600
Cc: <rickreed#tseng.co.uk>, <sdlnews#sdl-forum.org>
Subject: RE: [SDLTF-Members] Flushing the SAVEd signals
I've tried to register for the task force, but haven't gotten an indication
that registration was successful yet. However, I would like to submit a
case wherein save is really the most straight-forward means of
Process receives a shutdown signal.
It transitions to a state wherein it needs to flush all signals that it
receives except for a restart signal, then either react to the restart or
wait for it.
So, in the shutdown state, it receives and discards '*' signals, saves
restart, and uses the empty queue signal (provided: < true >) to react to
the queue and transition to a state wherein it can react to the received or
about to be received restart signal.
Anthony A. Weber
331 N. High Pointe Ct.
Roselle, IL 60172
> -----Original Message-----
> From: members-owner#sdl-task-force.org
> [mailto:members-owner#sdl-task-force.org] On Behalf Of Rick Reed TSE
> Sent: Friday, January 09, 2004 10:39 AM
> To: members#sdl-task-force.org
> Subject: Re: [SDLTF-Members] Flushing the SAVEd signals
> Become an SDL Task Force member at http://www.SDL-Task-Force.org
> William H. Skelton at W.Skelton#SOLINET.com wrote on 01/09/04 08:59:
>> It seems to me this is most common way people want to use save and
>> therefore it needs serious consideration.
> Actually I do not think this is correct.
> I cannot think of any protocol where when a signal X is received all signals
> of type Y arriving before are ignored and all signals of type Y already in
> the input queue after Y still required.
> If you can point me to enough examples, this is a REAL requirement for SDL -
> though of course it could always be handled by internal buffering.
> The usual reason for using SAVE (other than in procedures) is to defer
> signals when they could arrive in any order (X then Y, or Y then X) as it
> produces a simpler model to handle them in a particular order. A typical
> scenario is that X arrives from the network and Y from a user application on
> different channels. Saving one of the signals removes the need to store that
> fact that the signal has arrived and the information the signal contains.
> Rick Reed - rickreed#tseng.co.uk
> Tel:+44 15394 88462 Mob.:+44 7970 50 96 50
--End text from Rick Reed TSE <rickreed#tseng.co.uk> 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