Re: statemachine flaws/weaknesses

[Ladislav Michl]

On Tue, Feb 25, 2003 at 02:41:39PM +0100, Pawel Kot wrote:
> >>> address@hidden 25 February 2003 13:47:21 >>>
[snip]
>> But implementing sm_block_no_retry_and_no_ack_retry and friends is
>> an unneccessary complication.
> 
> But there's no need to do sm_no_retry_and_no_ack_retry() or whatever.
> What I want to do is get rid of all these similiar functions.
[snip]

so why not to get rid of all of them? it is difficult to decide which
part belongs to sending function and which to receiving. if message was
not acked in was not sent (from phone perspective). why not setup
communication first: what we want (eventually) to transmit and what we
are waiting for and then call _one_ function which fires statemachine
taking care about acks and retransmissions? (link will keep flags about
acks and so on).

        ladis