Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.arch.embedded > #25820
| From | Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.arch.embedded |
| Subject | Re: Do you use FSMs or HSMs? |
| Date | 2017-02-10 17:47 -0600 |
| Organization | A noiseless patient Spider |
| Message-ID | <o7lj5a$p8t$1@dont-email.me> (permalink) |
| References | <o79gce$om1$1@dont-email.me> <87k292ybhk.fsf@nightsong.com> <o7bmak$268$1@dont-email.me> <8760kmxyac.fsf@nightsong.com> |
Paul Rubin wrote: > Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> writes: >> It's always dangerous to generalize, but anything I can easily >> make non-blocking I will. > > Ok, you prefer to handle the event dispatch manually, with callbacks or > a switch around the protocol state. I know some people find that > intuitive but I've never gotten the hang of it. > There are a small legion of approaches. It depends on the problem domain. But yeah - you dispatch event messages to a machine of some sort. >> Some FSM oriented systems use an "actor" model where actors can be >> threads or even pseudothreads[1], communicating with sequential >> message passing. > > Yes, that's what I'm used to doing under the covers. Each thread waits > for some action while appearing to block, and moves forward when the > action occurs. Erlang is designed for programming in this style and > some very complex, highly reliable systems (phone switches) have been > programmed in it. > Most/many of the protocols for circuit switched phone systems have explicit FSM drawn in the standards. It's possible to have "pseudothreads", where the event sink dispatches based on event type to whoever is waiting on that event. This does not require a separate, O/S thread each. You maintain the advantages of run-to-completion and in cases, can be done on something which is too small for an O/S. -- Les Cargill
Back to comp.arch.embedded | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Do you use FSMs or HSMs? pozz <pozzugno@gmail.com> - 2017-02-06 10:43 +0100
Re: Do you use FSMs or HSMs? Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-02-06 03:20 -0700
Re: Do you use FSMs or HSMs? Dave Nadler <drn@nadler.com> - 2017-02-06 06:38 -0800
Re: Do you use FSMs or HSMs? "QL" <80499@EmbeddedRelated> - 2017-02-06 08:56 -0600
Re: Do you use FSMs or HSMs? Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-02-06 12:13 -0700
Re: Do you use FSMs or HSMs? jim.brakefield@ieee.org - 2017-02-06 16:52 -0800
Re: Do you use FSMs or HSMs? Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-02-06 18:11 -0700
Re: Do you use FSMs or HSMs? Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2017-02-06 23:32 -0600
Re: Do you use FSMs or HSMs? pozz <pozzugno@gmail.com> - 2017-02-07 10:39 +0100
Re: Do you use FSMs or HSMs? John Speth <johnspeth@yahoo.com> - 2017-02-06 09:17 -0800
Re: Do you use FSMs or HSMs? Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2017-02-06 18:03 +0000
Re: Do you use FSMs or HSMs? Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-02-06 11:56 -0700
Re: Do you use FSMs or HSMs? Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2017-02-06 20:34 +0000
Re: Do you use FSMs or HSMs? Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-02-06 14:19 -0700
Re: Do you use FSMs or HSMs? Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2017-02-06 22:12 +0000
Re: Do you use FSMs or HSMs? Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-02-06 15:29 -0700
Re: Do you use FSMs or HSMs? Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> - 2017-02-08 12:15 -0500
Re: Do you use FSMs or HSMs? Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2017-02-08 23:52 +0000
Re: Do you use FSMs or HSMs? Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> - 2017-02-08 19:59 -0500
Re: Do you use FSMs or HSMs? Steve Watt <steve.removethis@Watt.COM> - 2017-02-17 00:30 +0000
Re: Do you use FSMs or HSMs? Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2017-02-17 00:44 +0000
Re: Do you use FSMs or HSMs? Clifford Heath <no.spam@please.net> - 2017-02-07 10:12 +1100
Re: Do you use FSMs or HSMs? Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2017-02-06 23:36 -0600
Re: Do you use FSMs or HSMs? George Neuner <gneuner2@comcast.net> - 2017-02-07 03:15 -0500
Re: Do you use FSMs or HSMs? Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2017-02-10 17:41 -0600
Re: Do you use FSMs or HSMs? Clifford Heath <no.spam@please.net> - 2017-02-07 19:56 +1100
Re: Do you use FSMs or HSMs? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2017-02-07 01:30 -0800
Re: Do you use FSMs or HSMs? Clifford Heath <no.spam@please.net> - 2017-02-07 20:42 +1100
Re: Do you use FSMs or HSMs? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2017-02-07 02:46 -0800
Re: Do you use FSMs or HSMs? Clifford Heath <no.spam@please.net> - 2017-02-08 00:27 +1100
Re: Do you use FSMs or HSMs? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2017-02-06 18:35 -0800
Re: Do you use FSMs or HSMs? Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-02-06 21:50 -0700
Re: Do you use FSMs or HSMs? Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2017-02-06 23:39 -0600
Re: Do you use FSMs or HSMs? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2017-02-06 23:20 -0800
Re: Do you use FSMs or HSMs? Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2017-02-10 17:47 -0600
Re: Do you use FSMs or HSMs? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2017-02-10 16:11 -0800
Re: Do you use FSMs or HSMs? Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2017-02-11 15:43 -0600
Re: Do you use FSMs or HSMs? Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2017-02-06 23:24 -0600
csiph-web