- From: Monica J. Martin <Monica.Martin@Sun.COM>
- Date: Fri, 04 May 2007 10:16:09 -0700
- To: Ashok Malhotra <ashok.malhotra@oracle.com>
- Cc: "Fabian.Ritzmann@Sun.COM" <Fabian.Ritzmann@Sun.COM>, "public-ws-policy@w3.org" <public-ws-policy@w3.org>
>Ashok Malhotra wrote: 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 > > mm1: I think the point of the question is if it should say that Ashok. Thanks. >>-----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 17:15:33 UTC