Folks, Dave, David Snelling wrote:
Chris,
On 3 Jul 2006, at 18:49, Christopher Smith wrote:
Another rendering for this, which Marvin and I explored a little bit when writing our document, is:
<ActivityState BaseState="running"> <SubState StateName="profile1:Stagingin> <SubState StateName="profile1:Held"/> </SubState> </ActivityState>
I don't think we need two different tags. ActivityState only should work, as the substate concept is captured structurally. My personal preference is still for the subtyping approach, but I can't see myself winning on that one.
+1 on having one element only.
It would also be nice to support being in multiple sub states (if it makes sense) because of various profiles and operations, so if (for example) I was in the above state, but the user also suspended the job, I could be in:
<ActivityState BaseState="running"> <SubState StateName="profile1:Stagingin> <SubState StateName="profile1:Held"/> </SubState> <SubState StateName="profile2:Suspended"/> </ActivityState>
This is both interesting and very scary. On the interesting side this make sense:
<ActivityState StateName="running"> < ActivityState StateName="profile1:StagingIn/> < ActivityState StateName="profile1:Held/> </ActivityState>
The problems I think will arise when we start to describe the semantics.
... let alone the heroic and at the same time cumbersome task to maintain a list of incompatible activity states that come from two (or even more) different profiles.
It is scary enough that I don't want to try thinking about it with out others around and a beer.
As you know, I almost always agree on "spirited" discussions. :-) Cheers, Michel -- Michel <dot> Drescher <at> uk <dot> fujitsu <dot> com Fujitsu Laboratories of Europe +44 20 8606 4834