why some method has no async callback parameter?

[fawdlstty]

I find some method has no async callback parameter such as PermitDynamic, PermitDynamicIf, etc. but some method has async callback parameter, such as OnEntryAsync, OnEntryFromAsync, etc.

why no PermitDynamicAsync, PermitDynamicIfAsync method to use?

[HenningNT]

I think there are two explanations: The Async side of the library have not been prioritized, and a lack of interest, i.e. we only add the bits that people ask for.

At the moment I'd rather not add more methods, but use a more "fluent" configuration:

sm.Configure(State.A)
    .Permit(Trigger.Z, State.B).Do(SomeAction)
    .Permit(Trigger.T).Internal().If(SomeCondition).Do(SomeAction)
    .Permit(Trigger.S).Self().Do(SomeAction)
    .Permit(Trigger.R).Self().If(SomeCondition).Do(SomeAction)
    .Permit(Trigger.S).Self().Do(SomeAction)

There wouldn't be any Async, only the Actions that would be called would be async. The only method with Async in its name would be FireAsync. I gave it a go in PR #369, but haven't merged it yet, I'm not sure if I have time to support it.

[md-gh]

Maybe I can help develop stateless ?

[HenningNT]

Sure thing!
We are always open to pull requests :-)

[aalivingston]

+1, I have need for PermitDynamicAsync on a project. Might look at submitting a PR, if I have some spare available time.

[fawdlstty]

At the moment I'd rather not add more methods, but use a more "fluent" configuration:

I developed a similar project SMLite, which prove the perfect support asynchronous still can realize "fluent" configuration at the same time, perhaps can give you refer to

[HenningNT]

Time is a limited resource :-)
I'd like to change the API to a even more fluent design, but don't have the time. ...and I'm afraid that the switch will be uncomfortable to Stateless users, as all state machines will have to be changed.

@aalivingston If you want to submit a PR then please feel free to do so!