[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: [libvirt] [patch 4/5] nwfilter: Extend schema to accept state attribute



On Wed, Oct 06, 2010 at 01:18:47PM -0400, Stefan Berger wrote:
> Daniel Veillard <veillard redhat com> wrote on 10/06/2010 12:00:04 PM:
> 
> > Re: [libvirt] [patch 4/5] nwfilter: Extend schema to accept state 
> attribute
> > 
> > On Fri, Oct 01, 2010 at 08:28:53PM -0400, Stefan Berger wrote:
> > > Extend the nwfilter.rng schema to accept state attributes.
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Stefan Berger <stefanb us ibm com>
> > [...]
> > > +
> > > +  <define name='stateflags-type'>
> > > +    <data type="string">
> > > +      <param name="pattern">((NEW|ESTABLISHED|RELATED|INVALID)(,
> > (NEW|ESTABLISHED|RELATED|INVALID))*|NONE)</param>
> > > +    </data>
> > > +  </define>
> > >  </grammar>
> > 
> > Hum, we really want to accept something like
> >    NEW,NEW,NEW,NEW
> > ?
> > I understand that we may want to add RELATED to another state, but that
> > regexp could probably be refined, isn't it ?
> 
> The only solution that I could come up with is to explicitly enumerate all 
> possible
> combinations of the above 4 words (15 combinations). This solution would 
> then also
> force the user to provide them in a particular order:
> 
> (A)|(B)|(C)|(D)|(A,B)|(A,C)|(A,D)|(B,C)|(B,D)|(C,D)|(A,B,C)|(A,B,D)|(A,C,D)|(B,C,D)|(A,B,C,D)
> 
> When not forcing the user into a sequence we'd need something like this 
> here:
> 
> (A)|(B)|(C)|(D)|(A,B)|(A,C)|(A,D)|(B,C)|(B,D)|(C,D)|(A,B,C)|(A,B,D)|(A,C,D)|(B,C,D)|(A,B,C,D)|
>  
> (B,A)|(C,A),(D,A),(C,B),(D,B),(D,C),(A,C,B)|(A,D,B)|(A,D,C)|(B,D,C)|(A,B,D,C)|
>                 ...
> 
> I think the proposed solution is not as 'strict' as it should be but 
> compared to the other two
> solutions I think it is 'ok' -- unless there is a fundamentally different 
> way of writing this
> type of regex.

  yeah, that's not possible as far as I know, I was somehow hoping that
not all sets made sense

((NEW|ESTABLISHED|RELATED|INVALID)(,(NEW|ESTABLISHED|RELATED|INVALID)){0,3}|NONE)

would at bound the regexp, but that's in no way simpler...

Let's kee the current version unless someone gets a brilliant idea in
the meantime :-)

Daniel

-- 
Daniel Veillard      | libxml Gnome XML XSLT toolkit  http://xmlsoft.org/
daniel veillard com  | Rpmfind RPM search engine http://rpmfind.net/
http://veillard.com/ | virtualization library  http://libvirt.org/


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]