On 10/06/2010 11:18 AM, Stefan Berger wrote:
> 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 ?
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.
I agree with Stefan's point of view: the .rng should be a syntax check
and outlaw completely unrecognized words, but to be concise, it is
necessarily loose and requires that we then perform additional semantic
checks to reject strings like NEW,NEW. And this is evident in my recent
<vcpu cpuset=...> patch, where domain.rng accepts strings like
cpuset='4-3' as syntactically valid (a range of integers) that are later
rejected by semantic checks (the integer range is backwards).
--
Eric Blake eblake(a)redhat.com +1-801-349-2682
Libvirt virtualization library
http://libvirt.org