Is there a typical state machine implementation pattern?
I prefer to use a table driven approach for most state machines:
typedef enum { STATE_INITIAL, STATE_FOO, STATE_BAR, NUM_STATES } state_t;
typedef struct instance_data instance_data_t;
typedef state_t state_func_t( instance_data_t *data );
state_t do_state_initial( instance_data_t *data );
state_t do_state_foo( instance_data_t *data );
state_t do_state_bar( instance_data_t *data );
state_func_t* const state_table[ NUM_STATES ] = {
do_state_initial, do_state_foo, do_state_bar
};
state_t run_state( state_t cur_state, instance_data_t *data ) {
return state_table[ cur_state ]( data );
};
int main( void ) {
state_t cur_state = STATE_INITIAL;
instance_data_t data;
while ( 1 ) {
cur_state = run_state( cur_state, &data );
// do other program logic, run other state machines, etc
}
}
This can of course be extended to support multiple state machines, etc. Transition actions can be accommodated as well:
typedef void transition_func_t( instance_data_t *data );
void do_initial_to_foo( instance_data_t *data );
void do_foo_to_bar( instance_data_t *data );
void do_bar_to_initial( instance_data_t *data );
void do_bar_to_foo( instance_data_t *data );
void do_bar_to_bar( instance_data_t *data );
transition_func_t * const transition_table[ NUM_STATES ][ NUM_STATES ] = {
{ NULL, do_initial_to_foo, NULL },
{ NULL, NULL, do_foo_to_bar },
{ do_bar_to_initial, do_bar_to_foo, do_bar_to_bar }
};
state_t run_state( state_t cur_state, instance_data_t *data ) {
state_t new_state = state_table[ cur_state ]( data );
transition_func_t *transition =
transition_table[ cur_state ][ new_state ];
if ( transition ) {
transition( data );
}
return new_state;
};
The table driven approach is easier to maintain and extend and simpler to map to state diagrams.
In Martin Fowler's UML Distilled, he states (no pun intended) in Chapter 10 State Machine Diagrams (emphasis mine):
A state diagram can be implemented in three main ways: nested switch, the State pattern, and state tables.
Let's use a simplified example of the states of a mobile phone's display:
Nested switch
Fowler gave an example of C# code, but I've adapted it to my example.
public void HandleEvent(PhoneEvent anEvent) {
switch (CurrentState) {
case PhoneState.ScreenOff:
switch (anEvent) {
case PhoneEvent.PressButton:
if (powerLow) { // guard condition
DisplayLowPowerMessage(); // action
// CurrentState = PhoneState.ScreenOff;
} else {
CurrentState = PhoneState.ScreenOn;
}
break;
case PhoneEvent.PlugPower:
CurrentState = PhoneState.ScreenCharging;
break;
}
break;
case PhoneState.ScreenOn:
switch (anEvent) {
case PhoneEvent.PressButton:
CurrentState = PhoneState.ScreenOff;
break;
case PhoneEvent.PlugPower:
CurrentState = PhoneState.ScreenCharging;
break;
}
break;
case PhoneState.ScreenCharging:
switch (anEvent) {
case PhoneEvent.UnplugPower:
CurrentState = PhoneState.ScreenOff;
break;
}
break;
}
}
State pattern
Here's an implementation of my example with the GoF State pattern:
State Tables
Taking inspiration from Fowler, here's a table for my example:
Source State Target State Event Guard Action -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ScreenOff ScreenOff pressButton powerLow displayLowPowerMessage ScreenOff ScreenOn pressButton !powerLow ScreenOn ScreenOff pressButton ScreenOff ScreenCharging plugPower ScreenOn ScreenCharging plugPower ScreenCharging ScreenOff unplugPower
Comparison
Nested switch keeps all the logic in one spot, but the code can be hard to read when there are a lot of states and transitions. It's possibly more secure and easier to validate than the other approaches (no polymorphism or interpreting).
The State pattern implementation potentially spreads the logic over several separate classes, which may make understanding it as a whole a problem. On the other hand, the small classes are easy to understand separately. The design is particularly fragile if you change the behavior by adding or removing transitions, as they're methods in the hierarchy and there could be lots of changes to the code. If you live by the design principle of small interfaces, you'll see this pattern doesn't really do so well. However, if the state machine is stable, then such changes won't be needed.
The state tables approach requires writing some kind of interpreter for the content (this might be easier if you have reflection in the language you're using), which could be a lot of work to do up front. As Fowler points out, if your table is separate from your code, you could modify the behavior of your software without recompiling. This has some security implications, however; the software is behaving based on the contents of an external file.
Edit (not really for C language)
There is a fluent interface (aka internal Domain Specific Language) approach, too, which is probably facilitated by languages that have first-class functions. The Stateless library exists and that blog shows a simple example with code. A Java implementation (pre Java8) is discussed. I was shown a Python example on GitHub as well.
You might have seen my answer to another C question where I mentioned FSM! Here is how I do it:
FSM {
STATE(x) {
...
NEXTSTATE(y);
}
STATE(y) {
...
if (x == 0)
NEXTSTATE(y);
else
NEXTSTATE(x);
}
}
With the following macros defined
#define FSM
#define STATE(x) s_##x :
#define NEXTSTATE(x) goto s_##x
This can be modified to suit the specific case. For example, you may have a file FSMFILE that you want to drive your FSM, so you could incorporate the action of reading next char into the the macro itself:
#define FSM
#define STATE(x) s_##x : FSMCHR = fgetc(FSMFILE); sn_##x :
#define NEXTSTATE(x) goto s_##x
#define NEXTSTATE_NR(x) goto sn_##x
now you have two types of transitions: one goes to a state and read a new character, the other goes to a state without consuming any input.
You can also automate the handling of EOF with something like:
#define STATE(x) s_##x : if ((FSMCHR = fgetc(FSMFILE) == EOF)\
goto sx_endfsm;\
sn_##x :
#define ENDFSM sx_endfsm:
The good thing of this approach is that you can directly translate a state diagram you draw into working code and, conversely, you can easily draw a state diagram from the code.
In other techniques for implementing FSM the structure of the transitions is buried in control structures (while, if, switch ...) and controlled by variables value (tipically a state variable) and it may be a complex task to relate the nice diagram to a convoluted code.
I learned this technique from an article appeared on the great "Computer Language" magazine that, unfortunately, is no longer published.