-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
agreed .. I'm +1 for renaming those two composite assertions .. Sanka Paul Nolan wrote: > Hi Sanka, > This issue is closely related to the patch I sent WSCOMMONS-19. > There is no > doubt that an All can be modelled with a Boolean AND. However the > ExactlyOne > is not so obvious. It only behaves like an XOR for the case with two > terms. > If you bring up the truth table for XOR with three terms you will > see that > there is a row (first one) that does not have ExactlyOne term. > > > A B C A^B^C > --------------- > T T T - T > T T F - F > T F T - F > T F F - T > F T T - F > F T F - T > F F T - T > F F F - F > > On 05/05/06, Sanka Samaranayke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> >> Brian >> >> >> Brian Hulse wrote: >> > Dmitry, >> > I believe that Neethi is correct here because the >> > specification >> > states that "wsp:Policy is equivalent to wsp:All." This is with >> > respect to >> > its action upon its children but Policy does have other attributes >> > such as >> > Id, Name and extensible attributes. However, once again I have to >> > agree with >> > you ... AndComposite is not revealing or obvious, since it >> corresponds >> > to an >> > All operator, so why not call it that? I think that Neethi has >> made an >> > incorrect assumption that All behaves like an AND and ExactlyOne >> behaves >> >> > like an XOR; this is plainly incorrect. >> Well, Neethi has made the assertions All behaves like an AND and >> ExactlyOne behave like an XOR. >> >> The All policy operator requires that *all* of its child assertions >> should be met. IMO it has the similar logic to an AND which require >> all >> its inputs to be 1's to get 1 as the output. On the other hand >> ExactlyOne requires that *only one* of its child assertion should be >> met. In other words only one of its child assertions should be picked >> for the final outcome (i.e. to load client side configurations). >> IMO it >> has the similar logic to an XOR which requires exactly one of its >> inputs to be 1 for the output to be 1. >> >> If you think these assumptions are incorrect, please explain so >> that we >> could consider to rename those composite assertions. >> >> >> > ... I believe that Paul Nolan will be >> > raising a JIRA issue on this shortly. >> > >> > Brian. >> > On 5/4/06, Dmitry Goldenberg < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> wrote: >> >> >> >> Hello, >> >> >> >> I have a question on the Neethi 1.0.1 API. >> >> >> >> What exactly is the difference between Policy and >> AndCompositePolicy? >> >> The >> >> javadoc for both says that they require that all of their terms are >> >> met. I >> >> assume the Neethi Policy corresponds to Policy in the WSP spec, and >> >> AndCompositePolicy corresponds to Policy with the "All" alternative >> >> type. What exactly are the differences between the two? >> >> >> >> Thanks, >> >> - Dmitry >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > > > -- > Regards > Paul Nolan > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.1 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFEYCI6/Hd0ETKdgNIRAhyxAJ426xMEEOMbsr+P0LN+hf/2Nc5MjgCbB5NU Hx4Ad+QJM9zapwm3zRAirYs= =Grly -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
