Re: [xacml] E-mail vote results

here are my thoughts:

1. the reason that i proposed that we not use java syntax is that it
will make XACML dependent upon a vendor specific language. while i like
java i don't think that this is a good thing.

2. describe 'java-like' -- how does this differ from 'pseudo code'? my
thinking is you are either [fill in the blank with language of choice]
compliant or you have a homegrown solution. the concern i have with a
homegrown solution is that we now become the authority for the
associated syntax. maybe our requirements are simple enough that this
isn't an issue. i suggest that maybe we should discuss what we perceive
to be the *reasonable* scope for this before proceeding?

b

On Wed, 2002-04-17 at 08:57, ernesto damiani wrote:
> Dear all,
> 
> I am also not convinced about the choice of OCL. I understand current
> discussion implies we abandoned the idea of Java-like syntax, though
> apparently I was off the list during the debate. Anyone willing to comment
> on why?
> rgds
> ernesto
>