Figure 1 was redrawn per discussions from two
weeks ago.
Regarding Figure 1: Is this diagrame clear enough
for now? Is there something wrong
with it? Can we now fill in definitions for the
numbered terms below the diagram?
[DOWDING,DAVE (A-Loveland,ex1)] See changes to
Figure 1 of the attached.
Figure 2 was to show "What a Module Is". 2A shows
a single entity, called/referenced/
pointed-to, etc. such as a TestMethod. 2B shows a
Module whos contents is a set of
(pre-defined?) FlowNodes.
Regarding Figure 2: Are there corrections,
clarifications?
[DOWDING,DAVE (A-Loveland,ex1)] Redrawn to show
Diagrams 2A and 2B are simply
lifted out of a FlowNode
Figure 3 was to show different FlowNode
variations with respect to the "out-flow" behaviors
or configurations. 3A is where all ExitActions
blocks and their Exit Paths point to one place.
(This configuration implies that if there is a
Pass/Fail result to the actions in its own Module,
those are recorded/kept in some fashion for later
arbitration.) 3B shows a out-flow that goes
to another point (at this point we have said
things like "terminal flownode or bin".), or goes
on to the next FlowNode entity (speaking from
bottom to top ExitActions block/ExitPath.)
3C shows where there is a chain of FlowNodes, and
where in a FlowNode of the chain (FN3)
one ExitAction block/ExitPath (call it Pass) goes
on to the next FlowNode of the chain. The
other ExitAction block/ExitPath (call it Fail)
goes around the rest of the chain of FlowNodes
to some named point... (This could be a branch to
a FlowNode that represents speedbinning
or something similar.)
Regarding Figure 3: Are these representation
correct? Are there other configurations that our
extension constructs should be able to represent?
What problems do these pose? What
issues do we raise?
[DOWDING,DAVE (A-Loveland,ex1)] These three a
okay... what is missing is to show them
as
part of a larger flow... this omission was intentional and no modifications
made
In figure 4 I showed an example of re-using three
existing flow nodes within the FlowNode
Module. The first FN1 has the behavior that if a
fail result occurs then the exit path from
FN1 goes out to a terminal point, thus exiting
the SubFlow Module directly to an outside
point. FN2 exit behavior as shown would not go to
a point external to the SubFlowNode
but would exit to one of the SubFlowNode
Post-points (i.e. PostActions).
FN3 exit behavior is that of either PostAction's
ExitPaths go to the same point that of exiting
the SubFlow Module to the
PostActions->Arbitor->ExitAction->ExitPath. The question
was:
[DOWDING,DAVE (A-Loveland,ex1)] Redrawn to show
the SubFlow Module is part of a FlowNode.
The
other modifications were to renumber the SubFlow FlowNodes to relate to Figure
3, and to move
the
ExitPath point of FN2 to be shown within the SubFlow Module window... I
believe we had
agreement that this diagram is okay. We will discuss
how to represent these in the syntax of
the
extension at a later point
Thanks, until the call,
Dave
[DOWDING,DAVE (A-Loveland,ex1)] Finally, we will
receive meeting notes from Jim O'Reilly.
We
will send via e-mail definitions for the terms 1 through 9 of Figure 1. I will
try to add some
more
SubFlow representations in a later update of the diagrams doc.
Dave
Dowding Office:
(970)635-6928 Cell: (970) 231-0823
Agilent
Technologies, 815 14th Str.SW, MS DL416, Loveland Colorado 80537