I think we need to call a vote on at least 2
issues:
1. Errors in 'and', 'or'.
2. Error-handling functions.
Simon
----- Original Message -----
From:
Daniel Engovatov
To: 'Simon Godik' ;
Sent: Monday, August 26, 2002 2:20
PM
Subject: RE: [xacml] re: functions
I
would actually prefer NOT to have any error HIDING
functions.
Probably we need to get abck to this issue in a more
formal [CR] way...
-----Original Message-----
From: Simon Godik
[mailto:]
Sent: Monday, August 26, 2002 1:59
PM
To:
Subject:
Fw: [xacml] re: functions
There is a typo in 'or' example.
What I really wanted was:
'or': false, ERROR, false ->
ERROR
Simon
----- Original Message -----
From: Simon Godik
To:
Sent: Monday, August 26, 2002 1:41 PM
Subject: [xacml] re: functions
Polar,
I agree with the approach where where ERROR in
evaluating 'or', 'and'
is used as placeholder until
all components are evaluated.
Then, if
ERROR can be substituted with either (true, false) without changing
result, result is returned.
If this substitution can not be made, error is
returned.
'and': false, ERROR, true ->
false
'and': true, ERROR, true ->
ERROR
'or': false, ERROR, true -> false <--
typo, must be 'true'
'or' true, ERROR, true -> true
I'm still not sure what is the purpose of error
functions.
If an error is raised, there is a prescription
of what must be done
during condition evaluation and rule
evaluation.
Even if we had error functions there is no
syntax to accomodate them.
Also, what to do if error-handling function is
raising an error, such as invalid default value
etc?
Simon
