Re: Timing

On Tue, 3 Dec 2002 [email protected] wrote:

>
> > > _Every_ sequencing language becomes a pain as soon as one tries to
> > > specify timing .... Therefore, I like events/state machines a lot more,
> > > because there time is not absolutely present.
> > >
> > _Every_ events/state machine becomes a pain as soon as one tries to specify and
> > ensure timing .... Therefore, I like sequencial languages that reflect
> > the sequential properties of execution, permitting timing
> > considerations to be explicit.
>
> And therefore, what about Timed Petri Nets?
>
I don't know enough about them to have a good judgement. What is yours?
I do have the feeling that using time to synchronize two or more
activities is not a good idea, especially not in distributed systems.
But I am ready to be convinced of the contrary :-)

Anyway, I think we have to make a decision in the not too distant
future, about which primitives to provide in the Orocos core. or version
1.0, I would not go any further than state machines, and events for
synchronization between components.

Herman

-- 
  K.U.Leuven, Mechanical Engineering, Robotics Research Group
<http://people.mech.kuleuven.ac.be/~bruyninc> Tel: +32 16 322480