Well frankly what I would have preferred is having some predefined
buckets maybe like :
<Request>
<SubjectContent>...</SubjectContent>
<ResourceContent>...</ResourceContent>
<ActionContent>...</ActionContent>
<EnvironmentContent>...</EnvironmentContent>
</Request>
Then use AttributeSelector that supported retrieving both text
(attribute, cdata, etc) and elements that also takes in the datatype
for the XPath - thus retaining typing.
It lowers the barrier to support XACML and would have kept things very
simple in my mind - but then again I maybe wrong:-)
prakash
On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 22:25:09 -0500, Seth Proctor <> wrote:
>
> On Mar 30, 2005, at 10:12 PM, Daniel Engovatov wrote:
> >> In general, however, I think this is
> >> cleaner than defining a catch-all section where you can dump
> >> XML-encoded data. That's just my opinion..
> >
> > Actually, IMHO, a catch-all section for the context representation is a
> > very good idea. Just stick it separately from Resource and name it
> > <CONTENT>.
>
> I think you conflated two ideas here. I was talking about taking the
> existing structure, but adding a section to Subject, Action, and
> Environment that lets you dump _XML_ data. I don't like this idea. I
> was not talking about changing the complete context representation.
>
> > Getting down that road - Subject, Action etc are not really needed
> > either. They are just for ease of management. Should be just some,
> > maybe predefined, extensible "buckets" - to associate with various data
> > sources. :)
>
> They're not needed, but I think they're very useful in practice. "Ease
> of management" should not be taken lightly :)
>
>
> seth
>
>
