Subject: Re: [boost] [msm] Version 2.0 available
From: Andreas Huber (ahd6974-spamboostorgtrap_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-11-11 18:05:57
Hi Christophe
> This is not a silly question but one which is begging for controversy ;-)
> I hope this is not starting a flame war
:-) You won't get any flames from me. Yes, I don't agree with some of the
points in MsmSession_Handout.pdf (e.g. 2.4, a user in his right mind would
put Stopped, Open, Paused and Playing into an outer CDLoaded state and then
only say if (state_downcast<const CDLoaded *> != 0)). However, although I
haven't yet reviewed anything in-depth so far, I'm definitely impressed by
the progress the library has made. I hope I'll find the time to contribute
an in-depth review.
> But this is ultimately a matter of taste (as I will of course prefer
> Msm and Andreas will likely prefer Statechart)
That really depends on the use-case. If I ever run into a scenario where raw
dispatch performance is paramount, MSM 2.0 looks like it could be a strong
candidate.
Out of curiosity, have you made any tests how many states compilers can
manage without running out of memory? IIRC, a Boost.Statechart FSM with 128
states and several hundred transitions was the most I was able to fit into
one TU.
Regards,
-- Andreas Huber When replying by private email, please remove the words spam and trap from the address shown in the header.