RE: [xacml] [Issue] Would it be SO bad if we dropped the <Function> element?

["Daniel Engovatov" <dengovatov@bea.com>]

Yep.   

So you are proposing instead of
<Apply
function="some-higher-order-function"><function>concrete-function</funct
ion>...

to use 
<Apply function="some-higher-order-function"
bag-function="concrete-function">...

Which is no really different from
<Apply function="higher-order-version-of-concrete-function">...

which I was trying to get when we introduced all this higher-order
function mess, that muddled the function extension point..

Sure I agree.

:)

Daniel.


-----Original Message-----
From: Tim Moses [mailto:tim.moses@entrust.com] 
Sent: Monday, December 29, 2003 8:41 AM
To: 'XACML'
Subject: [xacml] [Issue] Would it be SO bad if we dropped the <Function>
element?

Colleagues - Do we need to retain the <Function> element?  I believe its
purpose can be served by the <Apply> element when the FunctionId
attribute
identifies one of the bag functions.  We already allow a similar special
case in the <Condition> element, which is an <Apply> element whose
FunctionId attribute must identify a function whose return type is
boolean.

As currently structured, the bag function does not "enclose" the
attributes
or functions to which it applies.

If we require the use of the <Apply> element instead, the bag function
can
enclose the attributes or functions to which it applies.  See lines
[a477]
to [a491] in draft 3.  Doesn't this make more sense?

All the best.  Tim.

-----------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Moses
613.270.3183

To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from the roster of
the OASIS TC), go to
http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/xacml/members/leave_workgro
up.php.