On 1/19/06, Tim OBrien <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > <snip/> > > Even if a state is associated with a context it doesn't necessary mean that > there needs to be a > relationship with an actual context item. > > I guess this is a case of "well....wouldn't it be helpful to be able to > participate in that > Working Group". :-) > > The thing that I think is important for the SCXML working group to know is > that for some > applications to be feasible a state machine must be efficient, not tied to > execution context and > able to be shared at runtime by "possibly" thousands of instances. Maybe > putting it in Voice > terms might make it more relevant to that specific working group, if I'm > trying to model the state > of ten thousand simultaneous conversations, I'd start to care whether or not > I'd would have to > replicate the entire model or representation of the state machine. > <snap/>
My previous post didn't come out right, this "decoupling" is ofcourse needed in the current implementation, which is why this thread exists :-) In terms of feedback to the WG, there are public mailing lists at the W3C per WG where feedback can be posted, though I doubt they need any convincing on this aspect. And for better participation, we should push here on making the ASF a member as well. -Rahul --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
