Re: [RFC] or ACLs

On 09/24/2012 04:32 PM, Robert Collins wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 10:06 AM, Alex Rousskov wrote:
>>
>> I would like to add support for explicit OR ACLs:

> I'd like to see, long term, some more complete language - e.g.
> something with macros so you can define and reuse complex constructs
> without having to repeat them, which I think your OR support will only
> partially mitigate against.

The existing language is already functionally complete. Adding OR and
AND ACLs will allow admins to "define and reuse complex constructs
without having to repeat them". Is not that exactly what you would like
to see, and is not that much better than "macros" as far as ACL
definition and reuse are concerned?

The only thing that would still be missing is ability to construct
expressions on the fly, without naming every AND or OR sequence. For
example, writing "(a or (b and !c))" would still be impossible. That can
be supported as the next step though (reusing much simpler the code I
propose to add now):

  acl future is a or (b and !c)

Thank you,

Alex.
Received on Tue Sep 25 2012 - 03:43:11 MDT