RE: Question about history nodes
Jim Barnett <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.web.voice |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <57A15FAF9E58F841B2B1651FFE16D281051DBF@GENSJZMBX01.msg.int.genesyslab.com> |
Interesting question. We discussed this in the group and came across the following problem: what if the parent state's initial state is not an immediate child? That would be fine as a default for a deep history state, but not for a shallow one. I'm sure that there would be a way around this (maybe we could say that the default history state is the first child state), but we decided it was simpler to just make the transition mandatory. I'd be happy to take this up in a future version of the spec, particularly since the change would be backwards compatible (1.0 documents that specified a transition would still be valid once the transition was optional.) - Jim From: chris nuernberger [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2013 4:14 PM To: VBWG Public ([email protected]) Subject: Question about history nodes The SCXML specification states that the history node *must* have a valid transition for its initial state. It seems a logical default value for the initial transition would be the parent's initial state. Given this, is it *really* absolutely necessary to have initial transitions on history nodes? Chris -- A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds - Emerson