...provided you have a jvm handy (which by doing this we just offically
made a requirement... or at least a very strong suggestion).
my feeling is that this being *psuedo code* it is only going to provide
the logical construct for policy combination which will then be
translated into the the internals of the PDP (be it java, c, c++, perl,
python, c#, vb, etc.)
b
Anne Anderson - Sun Microsystems wrote:
> "bill parducci" <> wrote:
>
>>Date: Thu, 04 Apr 2002 17:38:27 -0800
>>counter propoposal to 3-04. i think that we should 'officially' use
>>c/c++ syntax for mandatory-to-implement combiner algorithms. for what i
>>think we need to do i believe that it is going to be virtually identical
>>and it doesn't have a vendor specific connotation.
>>
>
>>>>===============================================================
>>>>PM-3-04: Pseudo Code for Combiner Algorithms (Ernesto)
>>>>
>>>>Proposed Resolution: Java syntax should be used to describe any
>>>>mandatory-to-implement combiner algorithms.
>>>>================================================================
>>>>
>
> I think the primary value of Java for this purpose is that the combiner algorithm
> can be downloaded and executed on any platform as part of the PDP evaluation. The
> only competitor is C#, and I think everyone would agree that is far more "vendor
> specific" than Java. Nevertheless, I would be happy to accept C/C++ if that is
> what the TC majority prefers. Both suggestions have merit.
>
> Anne
>
