[xacml] E-mail vote results

[ernesto damiani <edamiani@crema.unimi.it>]

Dear all,

I am also not convinced about the choice of OCL. I understand current
discussion implies we abandoned the idea of Java-like syntax, though
apparently I was off the list during the debate. Anyone willing to comment
on why?
rgds
ernesto

----- Original Message -----
From: "Anne Anderson" <Anne.Anderson@Sun.com>
To: <xacml@lists.oasis-open.org>
Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2002 8:54 PM
Subject: RE: [xacml] E-mail vote results, and one outstanding question...


> After seeing the OCL example, I also am very uncomfortable with
> requiring OCL as our language for describing the semantics of
> operators.
>
> On the other hand, unqualified, arbitrary "pseudocode" is not
> "crystal clear" when we are trying to specify platform
> independent, interoperable implementations.
>
> Could we use the pseudocode in 7.1, and add just enough text to
> specify what the various elements in the pseudocode mean?
> Something like
>
>   The above pseudocode is interpreted as in common procedural
>   languages such as C except for the following:
>
>   1)  rule[] refers to the array of rules in the <ruleSet>;
>       policy[] refers to the array of policies in the
>       <policySet>.
>
>   2)  variable types are implicitly determined by the type of
>       the value with which they are initialized.
>
>   3)  a reference to rule[i] or policy[i] refers to the result
>       returned when the specified rule or policy is evaluated.
>
> Anne
> --
> Anne H. Anderson             Email: Anne.Anderson@Sun.COM
> Sun Microsystems Laboratories
> 1 Network Drive,UBUR02-311     Tel: 781/442-0928
> Burlington, MA 01803-0902 USA  Fax: 781/442-1692
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
> manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>