gmane.comp.lib.boost.devel

headers Martin Vuille | 19 Aug 02:07

On 05 Aug 2008, you wrote in gmane.comp.lib.boost.devel:

> Andrey Semashev wrote:
>> Jurko GospodnetiÄ wrote:
>> >   What are the intended and actual differences from the
>> >   already accepted 
>> > Statechart library?
>>
>> The main differences are simplicity and performance. The
>> performance tests show difference by an order of magnitude, in
>> the best case for Boost.Statechart. The overall design of
>> Boost.FSM is geared more to compile-time code generation, while
>> Boost.Statechart aims to support more scaled machines and
>> therefore is geared towards run-time. There is a section in the
>> docs that compares the libraries. 
> I can attest to the necessity of this. We have several exchange
> libraries that require state machines to implement their data
> protocols but we use a home-brewed boost::mpl::inherit_linearly
> implementation because the features of Boost.StateChart simply
> brings in to many performance penalties for our simpler usage
> that would fit within the Boost.FSM framework. In fact, if I
> remember correctly, we used a thing on Boost.Vault called "FSM"
> as an implementation guide.

Hi Chris,

I am the review manager for the proposed FSM library, and
I was wondering whether you might have time to submit a more
comprehensive review?

The review period runs until the 20th, but if you need more
time it might be possible to extend the review.

MV

Re: FSM Review Announcement