On 8/28/06, Paul Spencer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Craig McClanahan wrote:
> On 8/28/06, Paul Spencer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
<snip>
>
>> o Is exception management needed in the dialog state management?
>
>
> Seems like it should be. What do you think *should* happen with respect
to
> exceptions here?
Treat an exception like a transition. Thus allowing then next state to be
a view, action, subdialog or end. A dialog default also can be
configured.
<dialog name="EnterCustomer"
start="enterCustomer"
defaultException="displayException" ...>
<transition exception="SqlException" target="pleaseCallTheDBA"/>
<view name="enterCustomer"...>
<tranistion outcome="success" target="saveCustomer"/>
</view>
<action name="saveCustomer">
<transition exception="CustomerAlreadyExists" target="editCustomer"/>
<transition outcome="success" target="done"/>
</action>
<view name="editCustomer".../>
<end name="done".../>
<end name="pleaseCallTheDBA".../>
<end name="displayException".../>
</dialog>
Now *that* is definitely clever -- and we can even couple it with the
behavior of a servlet container (exception declarations work for that
exception or any subclass of that exception) to be even more consistent with
the overall platform. It's pretty clear what to do with our classic syntax
for dialog configs. It'll be interesting to see how we might be able to
model this idea when we can't change the schema for the state machine
configuration (i.e. such as SCXML).
>
>> Paul Spencer
>>
> Craig
>
Craig
