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
To: <members#sdl-task-force.org>
Cc: <rickreed#tseng.co.uk>, <sdlnews#sdl-forum.org>
Subject: RE: [SDLTF-Members] Flushing the SAVEd signals
Hi,
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
implementation:
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.
Thanks,
Tony
Anthony A. Weber
STEDEK Software
331 N. High Pointe Ct.
Roselle, IL 60172
Cell: 847-910-6674
>
>
> -----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.
>
> William,
>
> 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