3 messages in org.oasis-open.lists.xacmlRE: [xacml] [batch #2] counter propo...| From | Sent On | Attachments |
|---|---|---|
| Beznosov, Konstantin | Apr 8, 2002 7:02 am | |
| bill parducci | Apr 8, 2002 7:38 am | |
| Beznosov, Konstantin | Apr 8, 2002 6:15 pm |
| Subject: | RE: [xacml] [batch #2] counter proposal to 3-04 | |
|---|---|---|
| From: | Beznosov, Konstantin (Kons...@Quadrasis.com) | |
| Date: | Apr 8, 2002 7:02:39 am | |
| List: | org.oasis-open.lists.xacml | |
I tend to agree with Bill's point that the language should not be vendor-specific. This is especially important if we want this standard be ever supported across the industry.
However, I'm not sure how much we can leverage a specific programming language without getting trapped into the problem of providing compilable code. Isn't it better to use some formal, such as Z or OCL, language for such things? See http://www.doc.ic.ac.uk/~rej99/suprema/examples_main.htm for an example.
Konstantin
-----Original Message----- From: bill parducci [mailto:bi...@parducci.net] Sent: Friday, April 05, 2002 11:14 AM To: xacml Subject: RE: [xacml] Re: [batch #2] counter propoposal to 3-04
exactly. this is why i suggest that we select something that is not associated with any given vendor. my gut feeling is that the combiners will be relatively simple and that c syntax should be sufficient.
b
On Fri, 2002-04-05 at 07:40, Ken Yagen wrote:
The fact that it is pseudocode not executable code means that we should not require it be possible to throw it in a JVM and compile it. I believe the proposal was just to provide a standard syntax that most people are familiar with explain the algorithms. You don't need a syntax to write pseudocode, but since this is a collaborative process, it is beneficial to be consistent.
---------------------------------------------------------------- To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>