<tt>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</tt> <tt>> > 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 ?</tt> <tt>The only solution that I could come up with is to explicitly enumerate all possible</tt> <tt>combinations of the above 4 words (15 combinations). This solution would then also</tt> <tt>force the user to provide them in a particular order:</tt> <tt>(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)</tt> <tt>When not forcing the user into a sequence we'd need something like this here:</tt> <tt>(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)|</tt> <tt> (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)|</tt> <tt> ...</tt> <tt>I think the proposed solution is not as 'strict' as it should be but compared to the other two</tt> <tt>solutions I think it is 'ok' -- unless there is a fundamentally different way of writing this</tt> <tt>type of regex.</tt> <tt>Regards,</tt> <tt> Stefan</tt>