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.
From: bill parducci [mailto:bi...@parducci.net]
Sent: Friday, April 05, 2002 11:14 AM
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.
On Fri, 2002-04-05 at 07:40, Ken Yagen wrote:
The fact that it is pseudocode not executable code means that we
require it be possible to throw it in a JVM and compile it. I believe
proposal was just to provide a standard syntax that most people are
with explain the algorithms. You don't need a syntax to write
but since this is a collaborative process, it is beneficial to be