Thanks for the response Seth - defining custom datatypes is what I
have gone ahead with...
But I was hoping somebody could throw some light as to why the XACML
committe felt a need for <ResourceContent> but not
<SubjectContent>...and hence my email.
I am not sure I totally understand the distinction b/w using
<ResourceContent> as a place to store XML data versus actual content
of the resource.
To me for example: a Subjec X - xml representation maybe:
<MySubject uid="X" firstName="prakash" org="somegodforsakenorg" supervisor="Y"/>
So if Subject Y is deleting Subject X then:
I could have said:
<Request...>
<SubjectContent>
<MySubject uid="Y" firstName="mymanagerwhowillbeanonymous"
org="somegodforsakenorg" supervisor="A"/>
</SubjectContent>
<ResourceContent>
<MySubject uid="someuniqueid" firstName="prakash"
org="somegodforsakenorg" supervisor="Y"/>
</ResourceContent>
<Action>
...
</Request>
Then in my policy all I had to say was if my supervisor of X is the
subject trying to delete then go ahead and delete.
I can do all this through custom datatypes and attributes - I
understand - as I said I was more curious to understand the rationale
than anything else...
Thanks,
prakash
On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 22:08:45 -0500, Seth Proctor <> wrote:
> Yeah, I understand where you're going. Basically, don't think of
> ResourceContent as a place to store XML data. Think of it as the place
> where you include the actual content of the resource you're trying to
> access. The fact that the connonical representation is XML, and that
> you can query it using XPath, is just a concidence :)
>
>
> seth
>
>
