[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: Issue #362: We need "request" and "response" objects after all
I am also confused by the following: âOtherwise (that is, if
thisObject is not an element of
theRun.requests, and
theRun.requests does contain a cached object for
thisObject), then
index SHALL be present, and its value
SHALL be the array index within theRun.requests of the cached object.â I am confused about what is the difference between thisObject being an element of theRun.requests and theRun.requests containing a cached object for thisObject. Same question applies to other similar sections. k From: Larry Golding (Myriad Consulting Inc) [mailto:v-lgold@microsoft.com]
Web analyzers keep insisting on using our format
😊 From: Yekaterina O'Neil <katrina@microfocus.com>
I still feel like request/response information is outside of the scope of SARIF, but I guess if there is a pressing needâ k From: sarif@lists.oasis-open.org [mailto:sarif@lists.oasis-open.org]
On Behalf Of Larry Golding (Myriad Consulting Inc) I made these changes, produced a change draft, merged it into the provisional draft, and closed the issue. Please let us know ASAP if you have any questions or concerns with this issue.
This is a substantive addition to the format, although as I said below, it is non-breaking, uses design patterns weâve used before, and addresses a pressing need. We came very close to meeting our goal of having all changes merged one week before TC #35. Of the three remaining issues that involve any writing (#266, #323, and #358), two of them are quite small, and one of them (#266) Iâm inclined
to dispense with entirely. I expect to finish #323 and #358 tomorrow. Thanks, Larry From: sarif@lists.oasis-open.org <sarif@lists.oasis-open.org>
On Behalf Of Larry Golding (Myriad Consulting Inc) While writing a converter for a web analysis tool, it became clear to me that using
threadFlow.immutableState to hold web request headers was
not sufficient to meet the needs of these tools. So I filed
Issue #362, âDefined request and response objects.â The issue explains the rationale in more detail, and presents a proposal. The proposal is
non-breaking. It recapitulates the pattern weâve used previously for logical locations and addresses: using
cached objects to reduce repetition of request and response objects, and making requests and responses
externalizable to reduce file size. I am going to produce a change draft and optimistically merge it into the provisional draft. I donât actually think this is a controversial proposal; I just wish I had understood earlier how important it was. My original goal was to have everything merged by end of day Tuesday (today) to give everybody a full week to review the final version. At this point I will miss that goal, but only by about half a day. Despite the seeming size of this
change, itâs quite similar to text Iâve written many times before, so I expect to be done no later than noon tomorrow. Iâll let you know as soon as the draft is available. Thanks, Larry |
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]