Hi Takatoshi,
I read your ticket. Note that it's not UML-conform to have 2 transitions originating from Entry1 (11-08-06.pdf ยง15.3.8 page 551). After reading the Standard again twice, I realized that no example provided there displays any event on both transitions, which is really bad if it's what they mean. I need to have a look at other literature.
I read the section that you mentioned carefully. My interpretation of UML specification is different from yours. It's really difficult to explain my interpretation. So, I draw the diagram. See the attached file. Am I misunderstanding?
I will not pretend I have the perfect understanding of the Standard. Here's my take. I also saw the sentence on top of your diagram and didn't fully understand it when reading the Standard. There is also the following sentence in the Standard: "An entry pseudostate is used to join an external transition terminating on that entry point to an internal transition emanating from that entry point". Which sounds logical because on your diagram the regions would not be orthogonal. This means you cannot have transitions triggered by different events leading to the entry point, not can you have different transitions leaving it. You will need more entry points. Caution: I am far from being sure I got it right. That's why I precised my definition of it in the doc. The implemented solution has the advantage that you have the normal transition handling, including multiple transitions and guards, events with data, base events, etc. What you don't have is entry in multiple regions, which only the fork currently provides, at the cost of lesser encapsulation. Correct or not, this is the part of the Standard I chose to implement pseudo entries. To be honest, I'm not of fan of pseudo entries. I prefer the vastly superior solution of entering a submachine the "normal" way, then letting a templatized, enable_if'd on_entry of the submachine do something clever with the event at compile-time.
My goal is to improve sub-machines' re-usability. If we want to reuse sub-machines in another state machines, sub-machines shouldn't know the outside information.
I agree but is it the case? I mean, if you send normal events to your submachine through your outer machine, it also needs to know them, right? I understand this as: "hi, I'm a submachine and I provide the following entry points: Entry1 requires Event1, Entry2 requires Event2, etc.". A bit like function parameters.
See my second mail in this thread. My solution using templates (entry_pseudo_event_template.cpp) requires the template parameters same as the number of entry point pseudo states in sub-machine. It's acceptable but if outgoing transition would be able to use none, I would remove the template parameters.
In the above case, it is not required to support multiple incoming transitions to one entry pseudo state. Because the instances of sub-machine are different.
In this case, maybe I could interest you in defining a base event class for Event1 and Event2, then making this base event the event triggering the inside transition. Your first example would be changed this way: struct BaseEvent {}; struct Event1: public BaseEvent {}; ... msmf::Row < Entry1, BaseEvent, State2_2, msmf::none, msmf::none > Regards, Christophe