I'm already set up with the source code, so I may have a look later, but unfortunately I think I will also not be able to work on this for a while.
Jake On 10-09-05 10:19 AM, Rahul Akolkar wrote: > 2010/9/5 Xun Long Gui <ustbco...@gmail.com>: > >> Yeah, I will add this part, but i think it will take me a while, i will >> graduate this winter, these days, i was working for my graduate pater, so >> may be you should wait for a while, sorry for that :-( >> >> > <snip/> > > The other option always available would be for someone else to jump in > and make the necessary changes. I may not have time soon for this, but > Jake or Chris if you want to take a look, feel free to have at it. > > Starting point to get going is probably this page [1]. > > -Rahul > > [1] > http://commons.apache.org/sandbox/gsoc/2010/scxml-eclipse/guide/run-source-code.html > > > > >> 2010/9/5 Jacob Beard <jbea...@cs.mcgill.ca> >> >> >>> Hi Long, >>> >>> I just wanted to follow up quickly and find out the current status on the >>> issues that were raised here. Specifically, is it possible to add >>> executable >>> content to transitions in scxml-eclipse? >>> >>> Please let me know. Thanks, >>> >>> Jake >>> >>> 2010/8/8 Jacob Beard <jbea...@cs.mcgill.ca> >>> >>> >>>> Hi Long, >>>> >>>> I should mention that I had missed this part of the specification as >>>> well, and I only recently discovered it while trying to determine how >>>> best to express static reactions with SCXML. I'm currently updating >>>> scxml-js to support this. >>>> >>>> Jake >>>> >>>> On 10-08-08 10:12 PM, Xun Long Gui wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi Jake, >>>>> Thanks for your reply. It seems that we should re-define transition EMF >>>>> >>>> data >>>> >>>>> model for this tool, rebuild the tool from the base. I will read SCXML >>>>> transition specification carefully and carry on the rebuild job >>>>> >>>>> 在 2010年8月9日 上午9:22，Jacob Beard <jbea...@cs.mcgill.ca>写道： >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> Hi, Long, >>>>>> >>>>>> Replies below: >>>>>> >>>>>> On 10-08-08 09:06 PM, Xun Long Gui wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> I do not think we can create a transition without a target, target is >>>>>>> >>> a >>> >>>>>>> necessary element for a transition. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> The spec says that the target attribute on transition is not required. >>>>>> In that case, I think the semantics are similar to a Static Reaction, >>>>>> >>> as >>> >>>>>> defined in the paper describing the Rhapsody semantics of statecharts. >>>>>> From the spec: >>>>>> >>>>>> The identifier(s) of the state or parallel region to transition to. If >>>>>> it is omitted, the transition will not cause a change in the state >>>>>> configuration when it is executed. The executable content contained in >>>>>> the transition will still be executed, so the transition will function >>>>>> as a simple event handler. If the target is present and equal to the >>>>>> state containing the transition element, the transition will cause the >>>>>> state machine to leave and then re-enter this state. >>>>>> >>>>>> From: http://www.w3.org/TR/scxml/#transition >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> To feature 1 and 3 in Chris's commends, we can achieve them, not a >>>>>>> >>> big >>> >>>>>>> thing. What do you mean about "showstoppers" bug ? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> What I mean is that I think these things are critical to usability. >>>>>> >>>>>> Jake >>>>>> >>>>>> > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
