Timeline for How can a child state machine relinquish control back to the parent state machine?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
8 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 8, 2012 at 21:39 | vote | accept | JoJo | ||
| Feb 10, 2012 at 11:07 | answer | added | DPD | timeline score: 1 | |
| Feb 9, 2012 at 20:31 | answer | added | Renee Cousins | timeline score: 2 | |
| Feb 9, 2012 at 20:07 | answer | added | Karl Bielefeldt | timeline score: 6 | |
| Feb 9, 2012 at 19:51 | answer | added | Spencer Rathbun | timeline score: 2 | |
| Feb 9, 2012 at 19:50 | comment | added | Dunk | Your question has either the obvious answer or your question is not very clear. From the point of view of the parent, you should implement it exactly like you would implement a state machine that doesn't have child state machines. It just so happens that the states are implemented by using child state machines but that doesn't affect the parent at all. It also shouldn't affect the children state machines other than upon exit they only generate the parent level events. | |
| Feb 9, 2012 at 19:25 | comment | added | FrustratedWithFormsDesigner | I'd guess that B0, B1, and B2 should know that they're components of something that the outside world considers to be a single unit. So maybe you'd have to have a MachineContainer class for B that contains B0, B1, and B2 and when B2 ends, it passes control back to its container which then transitions to C... I've never actually tried anything like this though. It's an interesting problem! | |
| Feb 9, 2012 at 18:35 | history | asked | JoJo | CC BY-SA 3.0 |