Browse Prior Art Database

# PRIORITY ORDERING FOR IN-PLACE PRIORITIES

IP.com Disclosure Number: IPCOM000008887D
Original Publication Date: 1998-Sep-01
Included in the Prior Art Database: 2002-Jul-22
Document File: 2 page(s) / 103K

Motorola

## Related People

Henry Happ: AUTHOR [+2]

## Abstract

This paper describes a method for updating the meaning of priority values assigned to items when the actual priorities change (increase or decrease) over time, but the assigned priorities are limited in range and remain unchanged over the lifetime of the item. Key to the method is that items will have a limited lifetime on the list. The method allows for the dynamic assignment of meaning when none was possible before.

This text was extracted from a PDF file.
At least one non-text object (such as an image or picture) has been suppressed.
This is the abbreviated version, containing approximately 50% of the total text.

Page 1 of 2

0 M

MOTOROLA Technical Developments

PRIORITY ORDERING FOR IN-PLACE PRIORITIES

by Henry Happ and Ivan Hobson

ABSTRACT

new item, yet attach a meaning of high priority, by using the priority values of items that were removed from the list, as long as there is a gap between the high priority and the low priority items. By detect- ing a gap within the assigned priority values, it is possible to assign a higher priority meaning to a lower priority value as long as the gap exists.

Consider Figure 1 (a). Here is a list of items w*here each item is of higher priority than the item to its left. The priorities are assigned from I to 7, with I as the lowest and 7 as the highest possible priority value. When another item is added to the list that has a higher priority than the other items, it is con- strained to have a priority value of 7, as in Figure I
(b). In Figure I (c), the first two items have been deleted from the list. The lowest priority item now has a priority value of 3, opening up a gap between what is actually the lowest priority and the lowest range priority value. Thus, the next item that has a higher priority than the other items can now be assigned a priority value of 1. Because of the exis- tence of the gap, (i.e., the missing priority value 2), the meaning of the value 1 is that it is a higher prior- ity than all of the other values, with 3 now being the lowest value. Because of the gap, this is unambigu- ous. Additional higher-priority items that are added to the list will be constrained to have a priority value of I, as in Figure I (e), until the item with the priori- ty value of 3 is deleted from the list, leaving the item with priority value 4 as the lowest priority item. Then a new, higher-priority item may be assigned a priority value of 2, as in Figure I (f). As long as there is a gap in the priority values in the list, the lowest priority will be the value that is one more than the missing value; the highest priority, one less. In this example, once the last item with a priority value of 7 disappears from the list, leaving

This paper describes a method for updating the meaning of priority values assigned to items when the actual priorities change (increase or decrease) over time, but the assigned priorities are limited in range and remain unchanged over the li...