[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [xacml-dev] VariableDefinition (V2)
On Wed, 2004-10-20 at 19:44, diego gonzalez wrote: > I have a question regarding the VariableDefinition. What is the > expected behavior when there are two VariableDefinition that references > themselves? The code will throw a Stack Overflow, but I think the Response > error will be processing-error. Yeah. That's a good question. The spec is, sadly , silent on this issue. You have a couple options: 1. Assume that your authors (or tools) will catch this as an error case. In this case you're already doing the right thing. 2. Have your PDP look for these loops. This is expensive, and technically it's not legal to thrown out policies with loops, since they might actually have base-cases. You could however flag this case, for reference later. In both cases, you probably end up with an error like the one you're seeing now. I think that returning a processing-error is a good idea. You could also choose to define a new error, but I think that's probably overkill. You might want to include some status explaining what happened, so that this case can be caught in the future. Anyway, I think that you and I are pretty much thinking about the same approaches here. Sorry I can't offer more help... seth  I wanted to make this a clear error. In fact, I wanted a number of clarifications on the Variable Def/Ref system, but I didn't get them. The general feeling was that there are ways to use this recursive behavior effectively, but personally I think that in most real-world cases, this causes more harm than good. Sigh.