[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: [xacml] E-mail vote results
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>
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Powered by eList eXpress LLC