Correct order of deferred events in state-machine of UML 2.x












2















UML 2.x's state-machine diagram supports deferred events.
Here is the state-machine. state-machine-diagram



When I send e1, e2, e3, and e4 to the sm1 in this order, which is the expected state? If e1 is de-queued from the defer queue and en-queue again to the defer queue in s2, and e2 is consumed to transition to s3, the head of the defer queue is e3 in s3, so that the expected state is s5. However, If e1 keeps the original position (head) and skip it, then e2 is consumed, the expected state is s4.



Does the UML 2.x specification define which is correct?






uml state-machine







share|improve this question























  • Actually the 2.5 specs are very explicit on that. OMG even released a paper specifically for state machines: omg.org/spec/PSSM/About-PSSM Unfortunately it's not my domain so I can't answer the question.

    – Thomas Kilian
    Nov 20 '18 at 18:35













  • I don't know what the spec says. But it'd find it weird behavior if the order of events in the deferred queue would be changed (by checks). I'd expect that deferred events stay in the queue and that the algorithm checks starting at the "old" end of the queue and works its way to the "young" end. If it finds a non-deferred event, it takes it out of the queue and processes it (possibly by discarding it). I cannot think of any situation where enqueue would make more sense - or any sense for a fact.

    – DrP3pp3r
    Nov 20 '18 at 19:37











  • @Thomas Kilian, thank you for the document link. I didn't know the document. I will check it. In ptc-17-04-04.pdf, 9.3.16 Deferred seems to be what I wanted to. At first, I got confused because there is no /defer notation, but now I understand note(UML) Deferes Continue means Continue/defer. I don't know why the author doesn't use UML notation. Anyway, I will check the document covers my case.

    – Takatoshi Kondo
    Nov 20 '18 at 23:50











  • @DrP3pp3r, thank you for the comment. You mean the state should be s4 after all events are processed because e1 is sent before e3. I think that it is reasonable. But I think the processing order of the deferred events might be unspecified in the UML spec. If it is unspecified, the state-machine library author can choose other way. Boost.MSM, C++ state-machine library that supports UML 2.x semantics, seems to de-queued and en-queued, so the final state is s5. Here is the test code wandbox.org/permlink/v5hRtdJXRek8RidW

    – Takatoshi Kondo
    Nov 21 '18 at 1:40











  • @TakatoshiKondo. Yes, that's what I meant. I've got to check if yasmine behaves correctly.

    – DrP3pp3r
    Nov 21 '18 at 5:56
















2















UML 2.x's state-machine diagram supports deferred events.
Here is the state-machine. state-machine-diagram



When I send e1, e2, e3, and e4 to the sm1 in this order, which is the expected state? If e1 is de-queued from the defer queue and en-queue again to the defer queue in s2, and e2 is consumed to transition to s3, the head of the defer queue is e3 in s3, so that the expected state is s5. However, If e1 keeps the original position (head) and skip it, then e2 is consumed, the expected state is s4.



Does the UML 2.x specification define which is correct?






uml state-machine







share|improve this question























  • Actually the 2.5 specs are very explicit on that. OMG even released a paper specifically for state machines: omg.org/spec/PSSM/About-PSSM Unfortunately it's not my domain so I can't answer the question.

    – Thomas Kilian
    Nov 20 '18 at 18:35













  • I don't know what the spec says. But it'd find it weird behavior if the order of events in the deferred queue would be changed (by checks). I'd expect that deferred events stay in the queue and that the algorithm checks starting at the "old" end of the queue and works its way to the "young" end. If it finds a non-deferred event, it takes it out of the queue and processes it (possibly by discarding it). I cannot think of any situation where enqueue would make more sense - or any sense for a fact.

    – DrP3pp3r
    Nov 20 '18 at 19:37











  • @Thomas Kilian, thank you for the document link. I didn't know the document. I will check it. In ptc-17-04-04.pdf, 9.3.16 Deferred seems to be what I wanted to. At first, I got confused because there is no /defer notation, but now I understand note(UML) Deferes Continue means Continue/defer. I don't know why the author doesn't use UML notation. Anyway, I will check the document covers my case.

    – Takatoshi Kondo
    Nov 20 '18 at 23:50











  • @DrP3pp3r, thank you for the comment. You mean the state should be s4 after all events are processed because e1 is sent before e3. I think that it is reasonable. But I think the processing order of the deferred events might be unspecified in the UML spec. If it is unspecified, the state-machine library author can choose other way. Boost.MSM, C++ state-machine library that supports UML 2.x semantics, seems to de-queued and en-queued, so the final state is s5. Here is the test code wandbox.org/permlink/v5hRtdJXRek8RidW

    – Takatoshi Kondo
    Nov 21 '18 at 1:40











  • @TakatoshiKondo. Yes, that's what I meant. I've got to check if yasmine behaves correctly.

    – DrP3pp3r
    Nov 21 '18 at 5:56














2












2








2








UML 2.x's state-machine diagram supports deferred events.
Here is the state-machine. state-machine-diagram



When I send e1, e2, e3, and e4 to the sm1 in this order, which is the expected state? If e1 is de-queued from the defer queue and en-queue again to the defer queue in s2, and e2 is consumed to transition to s3, the head of the defer queue is e3 in s3, so that the expected state is s5. However, If e1 keeps the original position (head) and skip it, then e2 is consumed, the expected state is s4.



Does the UML 2.x specification define which is correct?






uml state-machine







share|improve this question














UML 2.x's state-machine diagram supports deferred events.
Here is the state-machine. state-machine-diagram



When I send e1, e2, e3, and e4 to the sm1 in this order, which is the expected state? If e1 is de-queued from the defer queue and en-queue again to the defer queue in s2, and e2 is consumed to transition to s3, the head of the defer queue is e3 in s3, so that the expected state is s5. However, If e1 keeps the original position (head) and skip it, then e2 is consumed, the expected state is s4.



Does the UML 2.x specification define which is correct?






uml state-machine




uml state-machine






share|improve this question













share|improve this question











share|improve this question




share|improve this question










asked Nov 20 '18 at 10:11









Takatoshi KondoTakatoshi Kondo

1,315915




1,315915













  • Actually the 2.5 specs are very explicit on that. OMG even released a paper specifically for state machines: omg.org/spec/PSSM/About-PSSM Unfortunately it's not my domain so I can't answer the question.

    – Thomas Kilian
    Nov 20 '18 at 18:35













  • I don't know what the spec says. But it'd find it weird behavior if the order of events in the deferred queue would be changed (by checks). I'd expect that deferred events stay in the queue and that the algorithm checks starting at the "old" end of the queue and works its way to the "young" end. If it finds a non-deferred event, it takes it out of the queue and processes it (possibly by discarding it). I cannot think of any situation where enqueue would make more sense - or any sense for a fact.

    – DrP3pp3r
    Nov 20 '18 at 19:37











  • @Thomas Kilian, thank you for the document link. I didn't know the document. I will check it. In ptc-17-04-04.pdf, 9.3.16 Deferred seems to be what I wanted to. At first, I got confused because there is no /defer notation, but now I understand note(UML) Deferes Continue means Continue/defer. I don't know why the author doesn't use UML notation. Anyway, I will check the document covers my case.

    – Takatoshi Kondo
    Nov 20 '18 at 23:50











  • @DrP3pp3r, thank you for the comment. You mean the state should be s4 after all events are processed because e1 is sent before e3. I think that it is reasonable. But I think the processing order of the deferred events might be unspecified in the UML spec. If it is unspecified, the state-machine library author can choose other way. Boost.MSM, C++ state-machine library that supports UML 2.x semantics, seems to de-queued and en-queued, so the final state is s5. Here is the test code wandbox.org/permlink/v5hRtdJXRek8RidW

    – Takatoshi Kondo
    Nov 21 '18 at 1:40











  • @TakatoshiKondo. Yes, that's what I meant. I've got to check if yasmine behaves correctly.

    – DrP3pp3r
    Nov 21 '18 at 5:56



















  • Actually the 2.5 specs are very explicit on that. OMG even released a paper specifically for state machines: omg.org/spec/PSSM/About-PSSM Unfortunately it's not my domain so I can't answer the question.

    – Thomas Kilian
    Nov 20 '18 at 18:35













  • I don't know what the spec says. But it'd find it weird behavior if the order of events in the deferred queue would be changed (by checks). I'd expect that deferred events stay in the queue and that the algorithm checks starting at the "old" end of the queue and works its way to the "young" end. If it finds a non-deferred event, it takes it out of the queue and processes it (possibly by discarding it). I cannot think of any situation where enqueue would make more sense - or any sense for a fact.

    – DrP3pp3r
    Nov 20 '18 at 19:37











  • @Thomas Kilian, thank you for the document link. I didn't know the document. I will check it. In ptc-17-04-04.pdf, 9.3.16 Deferred seems to be what I wanted to. At first, I got confused because there is no /defer notation, but now I understand note(UML) Deferes Continue means Continue/defer. I don't know why the author doesn't use UML notation. Anyway, I will check the document covers my case.

    – Takatoshi Kondo
    Nov 20 '18 at 23:50











  • @DrP3pp3r, thank you for the comment. You mean the state should be s4 after all events are processed because e1 is sent before e3. I think that it is reasonable. But I think the processing order of the deferred events might be unspecified in the UML spec. If it is unspecified, the state-machine library author can choose other way. Boost.MSM, C++ state-machine library that supports UML 2.x semantics, seems to de-queued and en-queued, so the final state is s5. Here is the test code wandbox.org/permlink/v5hRtdJXRek8RidW

    – Takatoshi Kondo
    Nov 21 '18 at 1:40











  • @TakatoshiKondo. Yes, that's what I meant. I've got to check if yasmine behaves correctly.

    – DrP3pp3r
    Nov 21 '18 at 5:56

















Actually the 2.5 specs are very explicit on that. OMG even released a paper specifically for state machines: omg.org/spec/PSSM/About-PSSM Unfortunately it's not my domain so I can't answer the question.

– Thomas Kilian
Nov 20 '18 at 18:35







Actually the 2.5 specs are very explicit on that. OMG even released a paper specifically for state machines: omg.org/spec/PSSM/About-PSSM Unfortunately it's not my domain so I can't answer the question.

– Thomas Kilian
Nov 20 '18 at 18:35















I don't know what the spec says. But it'd find it weird behavior if the order of events in the deferred queue would be changed (by checks). I'd expect that deferred events stay in the queue and that the algorithm checks starting at the "old" end of the queue and works its way to the "young" end. If it finds a non-deferred event, it takes it out of the queue and processes it (possibly by discarding it). I cannot think of any situation where enqueue would make more sense - or any sense for a fact.

– DrP3pp3r
Nov 20 '18 at 19:37





I don't know what the spec says. But it'd find it weird behavior if the order of events in the deferred queue would be changed (by checks). I'd expect that deferred events stay in the queue and that the algorithm checks starting at the "old" end of the queue and works its way to the "young" end. If it finds a non-deferred event, it takes it out of the queue and processes it (possibly by discarding it). I cannot think of any situation where enqueue would make more sense - or any sense for a fact.

– DrP3pp3r
Nov 20 '18 at 19:37













@Thomas Kilian, thank you for the document link. I didn't know the document. I will check it. In ptc-17-04-04.pdf, 9.3.16 Deferred seems to be what I wanted to. At first, I got confused because there is no /defer notation, but now I understand note(UML) Deferes Continue means Continue/defer. I don't know why the author doesn't use UML notation. Anyway, I will check the document covers my case.

– Takatoshi Kondo
Nov 20 '18 at 23:50





@Thomas Kilian, thank you for the document link. I didn't know the document. I will check it. In ptc-17-04-04.pdf, 9.3.16 Deferred seems to be what I wanted to. At first, I got confused because there is no /defer notation, but now I understand note(UML) Deferes Continue means Continue/defer. I don't know why the author doesn't use UML notation. Anyway, I will check the document covers my case.

– Takatoshi Kondo
Nov 20 '18 at 23:50













@DrP3pp3r, thank you for the comment. You mean the state should be s4 after all events are processed because e1 is sent before e3. I think that it is reasonable. But I think the processing order of the deferred events might be unspecified in the UML spec. If it is unspecified, the state-machine library author can choose other way. Boost.MSM, C++ state-machine library that supports UML 2.x semantics, seems to de-queued and en-queued, so the final state is s5. Here is the test code wandbox.org/permlink/v5hRtdJXRek8RidW

– Takatoshi Kondo
Nov 21 '18 at 1:40





@DrP3pp3r, thank you for the comment. You mean the state should be s4 after all events are processed because e1 is sent before e3. I think that it is reasonable. But I think the processing order of the deferred events might be unspecified in the UML spec. If it is unspecified, the state-machine library author can choose other way. Boost.MSM, C++ state-machine library that supports UML 2.x semantics, seems to de-queued and en-queued, so the final state is s5. Here is the test code wandbox.org/permlink/v5hRtdJXRek8RidW

– Takatoshi Kondo
Nov 21 '18 at 1:40













@TakatoshiKondo. Yes, that's what I meant. I've got to check if yasmine behaves correctly.

– DrP3pp3r
Nov 21 '18 at 5:56





@TakatoshiKondo. Yes, that's what I meant. I've got to check if yasmine behaves correctly.

– DrP3pp3r
Nov 21 '18 at 5:56












1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes


















1














Thanks to the comments, I got the answer.



Deferred event position



I use the word defer queue in the state-machine diagram, but there is no such concept in UML 2.5.1(latest) specification.



See the site:
https://www.omg.org/spec/UML/About-UML/



the file:
formal-17-12-05.pdf



UML 2.5.1 defines event pool.



In the 14.2.3.4.4 State history,



--start quote



Deferred Events



A State may specify a set of Event types that may be deferred in that State. This means that Event occurrences of those types will not be dispatched as long as that State remains active. Instead, these Event occurrences remain in the event pool until:




  • a state configuration is reached where these Event types are no longer deferred or,

  • if a deferred Event type is used explicitly in a Trigger of a Transition whose source is the deferring State (i.e., a kind of override option).


An Event may be deferred by a composite State or submachine States, in which case it remains deferred as long as the composite State remains in the active configuration.



--end quote



The important point is "Instead, these Event occurrences remain in the event pool until". The word remain implies keeping the original position in the event pool.



Event evaluation order



The events in the event pool has order.



See the site: https://www.omg.org/spec/PSSM/About-PSSM/



the file: ptc-17-04-04.pdf



9.3.16.2 Deferred 001, RTC Steps Step7 indicates that the event evaluating order is head("old") to tail("young").



Conclusion



The event evaluation order in the event pool is head to tail. Deferred events are just remained their original position. Hence e1 should be evaluated at s3 in my diagram.



Note



The Boost.MSM (version 1.68.0) implementation is not correct. https://wandbox.org/permlink/v5hRtdJXRek8RidW



I will report the issue about that.






share|improve this answer























    Your Answer






    StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
    StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function () {
    StackExchange.using("snippets", function () {
    StackExchange.snippets.init();
    });
    });
    }, "code-snippets");

    StackExchange.ready(function() {
    var channelOptions = {
    tags: "".split(" "),
    id: "1"
    };
    initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

    StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
    // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
    if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
    StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
    createEditor();
    });
    }
    else {
    createEditor();
    }
    });

    function createEditor() {
    StackExchange.prepareEditor({
    heartbeatType: 'answer',
    autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
    convertImagesToLinks: true,
    noModals: true,
    showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
    reputationToPostImages: 10,
    bindNavPrevention: true,
    postfix: "",
    imageUploader: {
    brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
    contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
    allowUrls: true
    },
    onDemand: true,
    discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
    ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
    });


    }
    });














    draft saved

    draft discarded


















    StackExchange.ready(
    function () {
    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f53390674%2fcorrect-order-of-deferred-events-in-state-machine-of-uml-2-x%23new-answer', 'question_page');
    }
    );

    Post as a guest















    Required, but never shown

























    1 Answer
    1






    active

    oldest

    votes








    1 Answer
    1






    active

    oldest

    votes









    active

    oldest

    votes






    active

    oldest

    votes









    1














    Thanks to the comments, I got the answer.



    Deferred event position



    I use the word defer queue in the state-machine diagram, but there is no such concept in UML 2.5.1(latest) specification.



    See the site:
    https://www.omg.org/spec/UML/About-UML/



    the file:
    formal-17-12-05.pdf



    UML 2.5.1 defines event pool.



    In the 14.2.3.4.4 State history,



    --start quote



    Deferred Events



    A State may specify a set of Event types that may be deferred in that State. This means that Event occurrences of those types will not be dispatched as long as that State remains active. Instead, these Event occurrences remain in the event pool until:




    • a state configuration is reached where these Event types are no longer deferred or,

    • if a deferred Event type is used explicitly in a Trigger of a Transition whose source is the deferring State (i.e., a kind of override option).


    An Event may be deferred by a composite State or submachine States, in which case it remains deferred as long as the composite State remains in the active configuration.



    --end quote



    The important point is "Instead, these Event occurrences remain in the event pool until". The word remain implies keeping the original position in the event pool.



    Event evaluation order



    The events in the event pool has order.



    See the site: https://www.omg.org/spec/PSSM/About-PSSM/



    the file: ptc-17-04-04.pdf



    9.3.16.2 Deferred 001, RTC Steps Step7 indicates that the event evaluating order is head("old") to tail("young").



    Conclusion



    The event evaluation order in the event pool is head to tail. Deferred events are just remained their original position. Hence e1 should be evaluated at s3 in my diagram.



    Note



    The Boost.MSM (version 1.68.0) implementation is not correct. https://wandbox.org/permlink/v5hRtdJXRek8RidW



    I will report the issue about that.






    share|improve this answer




























      1














      Thanks to the comments, I got the answer.



      Deferred event position



      I use the word defer queue in the state-machine diagram, but there is no such concept in UML 2.5.1(latest) specification.



      See the site:
      https://www.omg.org/spec/UML/About-UML/



      the file:
      formal-17-12-05.pdf



      UML 2.5.1 defines event pool.



      In the 14.2.3.4.4 State history,



      --start quote



      Deferred Events



      A State may specify a set of Event types that may be deferred in that State. This means that Event occurrences of those types will not be dispatched as long as that State remains active. Instead, these Event occurrences remain in the event pool until:




      • a state configuration is reached where these Event types are no longer deferred or,

      • if a deferred Event type is used explicitly in a Trigger of a Transition whose source is the deferring State (i.e., a kind of override option).


      An Event may be deferred by a composite State or submachine States, in which case it remains deferred as long as the composite State remains in the active configuration.



      --end quote



      The important point is "Instead, these Event occurrences remain in the event pool until". The word remain implies keeping the original position in the event pool.



      Event evaluation order



      The events in the event pool has order.



      See the site: https://www.omg.org/spec/PSSM/About-PSSM/



      the file: ptc-17-04-04.pdf



      9.3.16.2 Deferred 001, RTC Steps Step7 indicates that the event evaluating order is head("old") to tail("young").



      Conclusion



      The event evaluation order in the event pool is head to tail. Deferred events are just remained their original position. Hence e1 should be evaluated at s3 in my diagram.



      Note



      The Boost.MSM (version 1.68.0) implementation is not correct. https://wandbox.org/permlink/v5hRtdJXRek8RidW



      I will report the issue about that.






      share|improve this answer


























        1












        1








        1







        Thanks to the comments, I got the answer.



        Deferred event position



        I use the word defer queue in the state-machine diagram, but there is no such concept in UML 2.5.1(latest) specification.



        See the site:
        https://www.omg.org/spec/UML/About-UML/



        the file:
        formal-17-12-05.pdf



        UML 2.5.1 defines event pool.



        In the 14.2.3.4.4 State history,



        --start quote



        Deferred Events



        A State may specify a set of Event types that may be deferred in that State. This means that Event occurrences of those types will not be dispatched as long as that State remains active. Instead, these Event occurrences remain in the event pool until:




        • a state configuration is reached where these Event types are no longer deferred or,

        • if a deferred Event type is used explicitly in a Trigger of a Transition whose source is the deferring State (i.e., a kind of override option).


        An Event may be deferred by a composite State or submachine States, in which case it remains deferred as long as the composite State remains in the active configuration.



        --end quote



        The important point is "Instead, these Event occurrences remain in the event pool until". The word remain implies keeping the original position in the event pool.



        Event evaluation order



        The events in the event pool has order.



        See the site: https://www.omg.org/spec/PSSM/About-PSSM/



        the file: ptc-17-04-04.pdf



        9.3.16.2 Deferred 001, RTC Steps Step7 indicates that the event evaluating order is head("old") to tail("young").



        Conclusion



        The event evaluation order in the event pool is head to tail. Deferred events are just remained their original position. Hence e1 should be evaluated at s3 in my diagram.



        Note



        The Boost.MSM (version 1.68.0) implementation is not correct. https://wandbox.org/permlink/v5hRtdJXRek8RidW



        I will report the issue about that.






        share|improve this answer













        Thanks to the comments, I got the answer.



        Deferred event position



        I use the word defer queue in the state-machine diagram, but there is no such concept in UML 2.5.1(latest) specification.



        See the site:
        https://www.omg.org/spec/UML/About-UML/



        the file:
        formal-17-12-05.pdf



        UML 2.5.1 defines event pool.



        In the 14.2.3.4.4 State history,



        --start quote



        Deferred Events



        A State may specify a set of Event types that may be deferred in that State. This means that Event occurrences of those types will not be dispatched as long as that State remains active. Instead, these Event occurrences remain in the event pool until:




        • a state configuration is reached where these Event types are no longer deferred or,

        • if a deferred Event type is used explicitly in a Trigger of a Transition whose source is the deferring State (i.e., a kind of override option).


        An Event may be deferred by a composite State or submachine States, in which case it remains deferred as long as the composite State remains in the active configuration.



        --end quote



        The important point is "Instead, these Event occurrences remain in the event pool until". The word remain implies keeping the original position in the event pool.



        Event evaluation order



        The events in the event pool has order.



        See the site: https://www.omg.org/spec/PSSM/About-PSSM/



        the file: ptc-17-04-04.pdf



        9.3.16.2 Deferred 001, RTC Steps Step7 indicates that the event evaluating order is head("old") to tail("young").



        Conclusion



        The event evaluation order in the event pool is head to tail. Deferred events are just remained their original position. Hence e1 should be evaluated at s3 in my diagram.



        Note



        The Boost.MSM (version 1.68.0) implementation is not correct. https://wandbox.org/permlink/v5hRtdJXRek8RidW



        I will report the issue about that.







        share|improve this answer












        share|improve this answer



        share|improve this answer










        answered Nov 21 '18 at 4:05









        Takatoshi KondoTakatoshi Kondo

        1,315915




        1,315915
































            draft saved

            draft discarded




















































            Thanks for contributing an answer to Stack Overflow!


            • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

            But avoid …



            • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

            • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


            To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




            draft saved


            draft discarded














            StackExchange.ready(
            function () {
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f53390674%2fcorrect-order-of-deferred-events-in-state-machine-of-uml-2-x%23new-answer', 'question_page');
            }
            );

            Post as a guest















            Required, but never shown





















































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown

































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown







            -

            Popular posts from this blog

            Guess what letter conforming each word

            Image
            6 $begingroup$ This is an entry in the Fortnightly Topic Challenge #41: Short and Sweet. 1 letter only could be mean anything . With an additional letter in front , could be used as medicine component and something you definitely learn or at least heard once. Add another letter in front , you would possibly hear that many times . Add an additional letter in front , you would found an independent country . With an additional letter, in the end , you would found something related to apple . Add another letter in the end , you would found something bad . Hint: Each letter is unique . word knowledge letters chemistry share | improve this question ...
            Read more

            Port of Spain

            Image
            For ports in the country of Spain, see List of ports in Spain. City in City of Port of Spain, Trinidad and Tobago Port of Spain City City of Port of Spain Top to bottom (left to right): Skyline of Port of Spain from Gulf of Paria; National Academy for the Performing Arts, Independence Square, Eric Williams Plaza; MovieTowne, Port of Port of Spain Motto(s):  "We Gather Strength As We Go Along" Port of Spain Coordinates: 10°40′N 61°31′W  /  10.667°N 61.517°W  / 10.667; -61.517 Coordinates: 10°40′N 61°31′W  /  10.667°N 61.517°W  / 10.667; -61.517 Country   Trinidad and Tobago Jurisdiction City of Port of Spain Settled 1560 Incorporated (town) 1853 Incorporated (city) 1914 Government  • Mayor Joel Martinez  • Governing body City Corporation Area [1]  • City 12 km 2 (5 sq mi) Elevation [2] 66 m (217 ft) Population (2011) [1]  • City 37,074  • Rank 3rd  • Density 3,090/km 2 (8,000/sq mi)...
            Read more

            Run scheduled task as local user group (not BUILTIN)

            Image
            0 I am trying to run a scheduled task with User Group (not a single user). This is working fine when I in the field "when running a task, use the following user account:" insert BUILTIN User Group (for example: Administrators or Users). But when I try it with the created Local User Group (example: TestGroup) it is not working. The Users in the TestGroup are the same as in the Administrators group. What could be the problem? Are there some restrictions to the Created User Group compared to BUILTINUsers? scheduled-tasks taskscheduler windowstaskschedule share | improve this question asked Nov 15 '18 at 15:36 Far...
            Read more