Daniel Veillard <veillard(a)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(a)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.
Regards,
Stefan