[IGSTK-Developers] Questions on TrackerTool

[Luis Ibanez]

Hi Kevin,

We were discussing this morning some of the issues with the
state machine of the tracker tool, and following on Ziv's
request for completing the transition tables of all state
machine based classes.

You are right regarding the fact that the TrackerTool has not
an operational State Machine.  This is in part due to the way
in which the Tracker Tool was being used from the Tracker,
mostly as an internal helper class, instead of being exposed
to the user as a full IGSTK class the application developers.

We are currently modifying the API of the Tracker and TrackerTool
classes, and in the process we will reorganize the SM of both
classes. We have been stumbling on the actual definition of the
API, and how it will relate to the multiple reference systems
existing in the operating room.

Ziv may have more detailed comments on the status of the
state-machine-completeness review.


    Thanks


       Luis


=====================
Kevin Gary wrote:
> Greeting all,
> 
> We have been looking at defining rule-based constraints on state 
> machines to check for during unit testing. We are looking at defining 
> rules that involve multiple components, so one place we started was with 
> Tracker and TrackerTool. But, when looking at TrackerTool, the state 
> machine neither makes sense nor is used?
> 
> On a more general note, I haven't been on the tcons so I am wondering 
> what the status of the quality control / state machine transition table 
> completeness effort? We have written a simple tool out here to check for 
> this and are trying to integrate it into Dart (unfortunately we are 
> really struggling with getting Dart going).
> 
> Thanks,
> K2
> 
> _______________________________________________
> IGSTK-Developers mailing list
> IGSTK-Developers at public.kitware.com
> http://public.kitware.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/igstk-developers