May I suggest changing @source with something imho more self explanatory like @test or @match?
Thanks
Hadrian
On 7/12/06, Davanum Srinivas
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Let me try another variation to see if folks like it:
Syntax:
<filter source="xpath" [regex="string"]>
mediator+
</filter>
Explanation:
If the regular _expression_ is present then the <filter> mediator
matches the evaluation result of a source xpath _expression_ against the
given regular _expression_. If the regex is absent, then the mediator
tests the given source xpath _expression_ as a boolean _expression_. In
either case, If the test succeeds, the filter mediator will execute
the enclosed mediators in sequence.
Is this any clearer than the text and syntax on the wiki page? [1] or
am i way off base again?
thanks,
dims
[1] http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/Synapse/SynapseConfigurationLanguage
On 7/12/06, Sanjiva Weerawarana < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So you come from the XML Schema validation is a good thing camp I
> see ;-).
>
> So I'm generally, always, -1 on changing the language syntax to make the
> syntax schema validatable. Personally I don't give a damn about that ..
> let the language do what is best and if XSD can validate, great. If not
> too bad. In any case, XSD validation is not a really sufficient
> condition - its just a necessary condition and we can easily write a
> schema that is more relaxed than the original to make it pass.
>
> This particular change is ugly IMO .. the use of "@source" is to
> (optionally) identify the source data and xpath vs. regex was the
> pattern that must match.
>
> I think we need to maintain the principle that we design the language
> syntax to be as natural as we can get an ugly XML syntax .. and not
> worry about XSD validation, except if there's a minor tweak that can be
> done to make something work.
>
> Sanjiva.
>
> On Wed, 2006-07-12 at 18:23 +0530, Asankha C. Perera wrote:
> > Before I post this on the Wiki or proceed any further, I would like your
> > comments on the following..:
> >
> > The problem is around the existing language syntax which does not allow
> > us to properly validate a configuration through a schema. Let me take
> > the filter mediator as an example, and our configuration language states
> > the following :
> >
> > <filter (source="xpath" regex="string") | xpath="xpath"> mediator+
> > </filter>
> >
> > Shall we change this to
> >
> > <filter xpath="xpath" [regex="string"]> mediator+ </filter> instead, so
> > that the schema provided for this mediator could be used to validate a
> > config using it?
> >
> > The same goes for a few mediators as shown in the attached schema, and a
> > sample file which shows some examples with the proposed syntax.
> >
> > asankha
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
--
Davanum Srinivas : http://www.wso2.net (Oxygen for Web Service Developers)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
