Re: the status automation machine graph for frysk

[Sami Wagiaalla <swagiaal at redhat dot com>]

> > - Some methods like handleAddObserver() and handleDeleteObserver()
> > always do the same thing and never actually do any state transition.
> >
> > This adds a lot of (duplicate) code without being clear what it has to
> > do with with the actual state machine.
> >   
> Duplicate code worries me too. Inheritance is a solution but as Cagney 
> as mentioned
> before: the flat code is easier to read. Also I would much prefer that 
> I accedentaly forget
> to implement a function casing frysk to crash than accidentally pick 
> up a function from a
> parent and do incorrect handling.

One way to get rid of duplicate code is to have static utility functions 
that do the repeated
code. I know this doesnt feel very OO... what do u think ?