We'll have to ask Asankha what he had in mind .. in my mind it was always that @source was used to select what to apply the filter to and xpath or regex were ways of filtering.
Sanjiva. On Fri, 2006-07-14 at 21:19 -0400, Davanum Srinivas wrote: > Hi, > > Forget about XSD and validation....Am just trying to decipher the > intent from the verbiage / examples on the wiki page...Please bear > with me. I think i am getting the point. But just for clarification. > > #1: The example on the page says: > <filter xpath="//*[wsx:symbol='MSFT']" > xmlns:wsx="http://www.webserviceX.NET/";> > > So you are saying that it is implicitly > > <filter source="/soap:Envelope" xpath="//*[wsx:symbol='MSFT']" > xmlns:wsx="http://www.webserviceX.NET/";> > > Because you need to run the xpath on something and that something is > the soap envelope. Right? > > #2: If #1 is true, then the syntax on the wiki has an implicit source, > but one cannot specify a source explicitly when xpath is specified. > Right? > > Thanks, > dims > > On 7/14/06, Sanjiva Weerawarana <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Wed, 2006-07-12 at 13:00 -0400, Davanum Srinivas 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. > > > > This is not what @source means .. it identifies the data to filter; the > > "source" for filtration. If @source is missing, the data is > > the /soap:Envelope element. If its there it can point to any place in > > the message and then the regex or xpath matches against that node. > > > > So your proposal has lost function. > > > > Again, I'm -1 to the *principle*: If the language syntax is bust let's > > fix it. But let's *not* convolute the syntax to make a nice(r) schema. > > > > Sanjiva. > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > 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]
