Subject: Re: Final Assertion Spec -- problem noted.
From: Bassam Tabbara (bassam@novas.com)
Date: Mon Apr 08 2002 - 14:48:56 PDT
Hey Adam,
Adam Krolnik wrote:
[...]
> You ask, how do the assertion threads interact with one another:
>
> >(For example say our 2 spawned assertions created at the first req
> > and at the 2nd req communicating somehow) .... does it consume
> >based on:
> > req (req ...done) ? or is it -req- .... req .... -done- ?
>
> assert (req triggers ([1:10];done));
>
> I am suggesting that the assertions should be inorder. The first
> req would consume the first done, the second req would consume the
> second done. I would identify this as priority based on age (
> starting time, etc.)
I see... Then wouldn't something like assert (req[1]*, done) (I forget
the syntax...) do the trick ?
Like I said, if it's just one "assert" and its spawnings, and a
relatively simple dependency that can be outlined in a specific policy,
it can probably be covered. I have no preference as to what the
"default" behavior should be, but I do think a "simple" (not easy :-)!
just does literally what it says) variant is in order (albeit as you
point out, it might be too "literal" and therefore user would have to
outline more details ...). The other point I tried to make: we shouldn't
pick one or the other. The "simple" one is crucial, adding more on top
of it is ok too.
> You write that this can be solved by merging/composition of sequences.
> I would be interested in seeing what this would entail. With the
> model above, threads of an assertion that overlap in time have
> the possibility of being useful. In the proposed model, overlapping
> threads have no use because they can sync to the same sequence.
Yes, I meant that in general (in my expanded interpretation of consume
etc...), you would need something like:
s1: req -> ack ...
s2: req && !s1 -> ....
Again, in general ... As for the case you cite, I doubt there is need
for elaborate mechanisms. Indeed, it turns out -Erich's comment on
"first/last match" has been more accurate and to the point- than my
observation. I misinterpreted the depth of your usage of "consume" so
that discussion is moot now, sorry! Although I hope some good came out
of it :-)!
Thx.
-Bassam.
-- Dr. Bassam Tabbara Technical Manager, R&DNovas Software, Inc. bassam@novas.com (408) 467-7893
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Mon Apr 08 2002 - 14:50:40 PDT