At 09:57 06/05/97 PDT, Harry Lewis wrote:
>I don't want to begin making the diagram too complex.
>>>> +--------->----------+------>------+--> canceled(7)
>>> | | |
>>> +---> pending(3) -------> processing(5) -------> completed(9)
>>> | ^ ^ \ |
>>> --->+ | | +------------> aborted(8)
>>> | v v / |
>>> +---> held(4) stopped(6) |
> | | |
> +--------->----------+------>------+
>>I only want to assure that the state diagram does not give the impression that,
>to cancel or abort a job, the flow has to be back through processing.
>>> +--> canceled(7)
>> /
>> +---> pending(3) ----> processing(5) -----+----> aborted(8)
>> | ^ ^ \
>>--->+ | | +--> completed(9)
>> | v |
>> +---> held(4) processing-stopped(6)
>>>What was wrong with my proposal?
>>> +--> canceled(7)
>> /
>> +---> pending(3) ----> processing(5) ---+-+----> aborted(8)
>> | ^ ^ | \
>>--->+ | | | +--> completed(9)
>> | v v |
>> +---> held(4) processing-stopped(6) |
>> | | |
>> +--------------------+---------+
>>>>>>> Harry <<<
>>
It shows state transitions that are very unlikely:
held -> aborted
held -> completed
processing-stopped -> completed
and it doesn't show pending -> canceled