On Thu, 14 Aug 1997, Dima wrote: > Assuming "runlevel" is roughly equivalent to "state", the above model is > a stack of states. A state transition diagram would be a (potentially fully > connected) graph of states. (Potentially) what a mess. :) I don't think so. Just because it's potentially fully connected, it's not necessary for its handling to be messy. > > Next question is how to define a "state" -- 6 basic states is what we have > now. If we want more states (finer grain) our graph becomes messier. No,no. When we are talking about runlevels being a state, we should consider only the handling of state transitions. The actual graph depends on the actual usage, not anything else. And we have 9 states at least, read the init man page.
> Stack is a much simpler structure -- easier to implement, less bugs etc. > Besides, it's almost there already. But it can be messy if you want real state machine. And you will definitely want real state machine in some cases. I myself want state machine because I make a mission critical system consisting of two machines. The system itself has to have more states, and the machines may also want to change role should some failure occur. In this state of affairs I have to link K scripts for every single service I dont't want to every single runlevel. It _is_ messy. And once more: the actual state machine has nothing to do with the init scripts, they only make up a state, and define a state transition. The state machine have to be implemented by the availability demon (coming soon to the public). --- GNU GPL: csak tiszta forrásból -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .