W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ws-policy@w3.org > May 2007

Re: Bug 4558: Scalability and performance problems with expressing allowable nested policy assertions

From: Sergey Beryozkin <sergey.beryozkin@iona.com>
Date: Wed, 16 May 2007 16:45:45 +0100
Message-ID: <018f01c797d1$44b24000$c301020a@sberyoz>
To: "David Orchard" <dorchard@bea.com>, "Ashok Malhotra" <ashok.malhotra@oracle.com>, <public-ws-policy@w3.org>

Hi Dave

I'm confused :-). WSAddressing empty nested <Policy> does not match the more qualified WSA nested Policy by design, but this 
suggestion will make it match in a generic fashion even though by design it can't match...

Cheers, Sergey

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "David Orchard" <dorchard@bea.com>
To: "Sergey Beryozkin" <sergey.beryozkin@iona.com>; "Ashok Malhotra" <ashok.malhotra@oracle.com>; <public-ws-policy@w3.org>
Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2007 4:37 PM
Subject: RE: Bug 4558: Scalability and performance problems with expressing allowable nested policy assertions


It's exactly intended to solve that kind of use case.  The caveat is
that I'm not sure how much of a performance/scalability problem there is
with WS-Addressing...

Cheers,
Dave

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sergey Beryozkin [mailto:sergey.beryozkin@iona.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2007 5:05 AM
> To: Ashok Malhotra; David Orchard; public-ws-policy@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Bug 4558: Scalability and performance problems
> with expressing allowable nested policy assertions
>
> Hi
>
> Will it work with the WSAddressing nested <Policy> and say
> <Policy><NoNAnonymousResponse/></Policy> ?
>
> The above two nesetd policies don't intersect, but if either
> of the options below is used then the above options will
> intersect...unless I'm missing something
>
> Cheers, Sergey
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Ashok Malhotra" <ashok.malhotra@oracle.com>
> To: "David Orchard" <dorchard@bea.com>; <public-ws-policy@w3.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2007 12:53 PM
> Subject: RE: Bug 4558: Scalability and performance problems
> with expressing allowable nested policy assertions
>
>
>
> +1
>
> All the best, Ashok
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: public-ws-policy-request@w3.org [mailto:public-ws-policy-
> > request@w3.org] On Behalf Of David Orchard
> > Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2007 5:26 PM
> > To: public-ws-policy@w3.org
> > Subject: Bug 4558: Scalability and performance problems
> with expressing
> > allowable nested policy assertions
> >
> >
> > The policy intersection algorithm results in policy assertions with
> > nesting to
> > be verbosely expressed with all of the possible nested
> assertions marked
> > as
> > optional="true".  One example of this is SecurityPolicy with X509,
> > detailed in
> >
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2007May/0
> 160.html.
> >
> >
> > The scalability problem is that it may be difficult to list
> and exchange
> > all
> > the possible nested assertions.  The performance problem is
> that such a
> > scale
> > may result in slow policy processers performing intersection.
> >
> > One counter-arguments are that the number of nested
> assertions is not
> > large
> > enough to warrant this optimization, and that the
> optimization of adding
> > optional="true" is sufficient.  The general argument of premature
> > optimization
> > applies.  This would be a close with no action or defer to v.Next.
> >
> > Proposal 1:
> > Update the policy intersection algorithm so that an empty policy
> > assertion
> > matches a policy assertion with a nested assertion
> resulting an the same
> > policy
> > assertion with a nested assertion.
> >
> > Proposal 2:
> > Provide an explicit wildcard to match any nested assertions.
> >
>
>
> 
Received on Wednesday, 16 May 2007 15:45:12 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:20:51 GMT