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 ebl...@redhat.com +1-801-349-2682 Libvirt virtualization library http://libvirt.org -- libvir-list mailing list libvir-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list
