Issue 4938: include Actions.idl                                                                                                                                                                                     (action-semantics-ftf)
Source:  (, )
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity: 
Summary: Marit Skrede, marit.skrede@netcom.no] I suspect there should be an
"#include Actions.idl" line at the start of ActivityGraphs.idl - and
just thought I'd let you  know. (BTW, I've jusst used the #includes as
"lists" when using the idls for Java.)
Resolution: decline
Revised Text: 
Actions taken:
March 5, 2002: received issue
December 11, 2002: closed issue
Discussion: 
Actions.idl should not be included in any package.  The interface to
actions is Procedure, which is in CommonBehavior.idl.  It is taken as an
editorial fix that StateMachine.idl includes Actions.idl.

End of Annotations:=====
Summary: include Actions.idl

Text: 

[Marit Skrede, marit.skrede@netcom.no] I suspect there should be an
"#include Actions.idl" line at the start of ActivityGraphs.idl - and
just thought I'd let you  know. (BTW, I've jusst used the #includes as
"lists" when using the idls for Java.) 

From: "Rumbaugh, James" <rumbaugh@rational.com>
To: conrad.bock@kabira.com, ActionFTF <action-semantics-ftf@omg.org>
Subject: RE: Draft Action FTF ballot, #3
Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2002 09:13:26 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19)
Content-Type: text/plain;
	      charset="iso-8859-1"
X-UIDL: !/P!!/h2!!D>!!!:=\d9

See comments below on some items:

> 
> VOTE (YES|NO|ABSTAIN):
> 
> Issue 4938: include Actions.idl
>   http://cgi.omg.org/issues/issue4938.txt
> 
>   Resolution: Accept with modification
> 
>   Discussion:
> 
>     StateMachine.idl includes Actions.idl when it shouldn't.  
> The interface
>     to actions is Procedure, which is in CommonBehavior.idl.


This should be DECLINE. The rest of UML should not include
Actions.idl,
because we packaged it
to avoid dependencies.


Reply-To: <conrad.bock@kabira.com> 
From: "Conrad Bock" <conrad.bock@kabira.com> 
To: "ActionFTF" <action-semantics-ftf@omg.org> 
Subject: RE: Draft Action FTF ballot, #3 
Date: Mon, 1 Apr 2002 15:56:06 -0800 
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) 
Importance: Normal 


Jim,


 > > Issue 4936: StartStateMachine clarification


 > Clarify that, in the case in which the state machine has a create
   event,
 > the sending of the create event actually starts the state machine
 > (and thereupon triggers the initial transition).


I'd rather leave that to the state machine chapter, and not have it
redundantly in the actions.  The UML 1.4 is actually leaves open the
question of when the create event must be sent.  The object can be
created and resting in a pseudo state receiving events, in
contradiction
to the RTC semantics.  It would be better not to get into that area in
the action semantics.



 > > VOTE (YES|NO|ABSTAIN):
 > > 
 > > Issue 4938: include Actions.idl
 > >   http://cgi.omg.org/issues/issue4938.txt


 > This should be DECLINE. The rest of UML should not include
   Actions.idl,
 > because we packaged it
 > to avoid dependencies.


OK, I'll take it as editorial that StateMachine.idl should not have
Actions.idl in it.




 > > Issue 4939: Hard/soft deletion actions.
 > >   http://cgi.omg.org/issues/issue4939.txt
 > > 
 > >   Resolution: Decline with clarification
 > 
 > It might help to point out that normally the compiler or tool would
 > generate the code to first force the state machine to exit to the
 > outermost state and then would destroy the object when all of its
 > context is quiescent.
 > 
 > Typo: It is DestroyObjectAction, not DeleteObjectAction.


Rather than making suggestions to vendors, we can just point out that
soft destruction can be achieved by sending an event for a transition
out of a state containing all the substates of the top state
(presumably
the top state cannot have a transition going out of it).


Conrad