- From: Ashok Malhotra <ashok.malhotra@oracle.com>
- Date: Fri, 4 May 2007 10:11:30 -0700
- To: "Fabian.Ritzmann@Sun.COM" <Fabian.Ritzmann@Sun.COM>
- CC: "public-ws-policy@w3.org" <public-ws-policy@w3.org>
Fabian: The WS-Policy specification does not talk about implementations. Implementations are free to do what they wish, and will generally use specialized data structures. But that not the point. The spec says a policy is an unordered collection of policy alternatives which can include duplicate alternatives. All the best, Ashok > -----Original Message----- > From: Fabian.Ritzmann@Sun.COM [mailto:Fabian.Ritzmann@Sun.COM] > Sent: Friday, May 04, 2007 5:49 AM > To: Ashok Malhotra > Cc: public-ws-policy@w3.org > Subject: Re: ACTION-294 Ashok to open a CR issue with text to define > "collection" > > To point 3, at least when it comes to WSDL, I don't think duplicate > subjects (i.e. WSDL elements with the same fully qualified name) make > sense. They certainly are not ordered. > > Regarding points 1 and 2, wouldn't it be an implementation decision if > duplicates are maintained (bag) or discarded/collapsed (set)? I can't > find any necessity to keep duplicates. > > Fabian > > > Ashok Malhotra wrote: > > > > My point was that the word 'collection' in Computer Science is used as > > a generic term to cover several types of collections. > > > > See definition from Wikipedia below. Thus, it would be better to be > > more precise about the exact type of collection we use in WS-Policy: > > > > In _object-oriented programming_ > > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Object-oriented_programming>, a* > > collection class* is any _class_ > > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Class_%28computer_science%29> that is > > capable of storing other _objects_ > > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Object_%28computer_science%29>. > > Collection classes usually implement some kind of _data structure_ > > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_structure>, such as a _list_ > > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_%28computing%29>, _map_ > > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Associative_array>, _set_ > > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Set_%28computer_science%29>, _array_ > > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Array>, or _tree_ > > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tree_%28data_structure%29>. A collection > > class is usually able to store an arbitrary number of data items, i.e. > > the size of the collection is adjusted automatically. > > > > In the framework document we use 'collection' in three contexts: > > > > 1. "A _policy_ <http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/CR-ws-policy-20070330/> is a > > collection of policy alternatives." Since alternatives can be > > identical and there is no order between them, a policy is a bag of > > alternatives. > > > > 2. "A _policy alternative_ > > <http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/CR-ws-policy-20070330/> is a collection of > > policy assertions." Here, again, the assertions in an alternative can > > be duplicates and are unordered, so bag seems to be the correct term. > > > > 3. "A _policy scope_ > > <http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/CR-ws-policy-20070330/> is a collection of > > policy subjects to which a policy applies." Here I am not sure. Can > > there be duplicate subjects in a policy scope? Aren't policy subjects > > ordered? > > > > If the policy subjects in a policy scope can be duplicates and are not > > ordered then all uses of 'collection' mean 'bag' and we can add a > > definition such as "In this document the word 'collection' refers to > > what is known in the literature as 'bag'. But I thought we should > > clarify point 3 first. > > > > All the best, Ashok > > >
Received on Friday, 4 May 2007 17:12:45 UTC