[Os-project-managers] (Fwd) Warning: could not send message for past 4 hours

[Horand Gassmann]

Kipp Martin <kmartin at chicagobooth.edu> wrote:

> It seems to me that
>
>
> 1.
>  <general>
>  	<license></license>
>  </general>
>
> 2.
>
>  <general>
>  	<license/>
>  </general>
>
> 3.
>
> <general/>
>
> should all yield identical objects. In all three cases a general  
> object should be instantiated  and in all three cases the class  
> member "license" is a string equal to "". I have no problem with  
> that. Of course the question is what should the XML be. That is  
> going to be ambiguous and the user might well input in a file
>
>  <general>
>  	<license></license>
>  </general>
>
> and get back
>
> <general/>

OK. That is fine. As long as I do not have to replicate the <license>  
tag from the original file, I am OK with this.

Cheers

gus

> Now of course
>
> <osol...></osol>
>
> is totally different from a class/object standpoint. If we have
>
>  <osol...></osol>
>
> then the  "general" member of the class is equal to NULL. In cases  
> 1-3 "general" is not NULL.
>
> Do you agree that 1-3 are identical objects?  Is the question to  
> come up with a standard as to what we write?
>
> Cheers
>
>
>
>
>
>
>>
>> it is not clear to me where this message bounced, but somewhere  
>> there is a disk space problem... Cheers
>>
>> gus
>>
>> ------- Forwarded message follows -------
>> Date sent:	Thu, 3 Feb 2011 14:44:11 -0400 (AST)
>> From:	Mail Delivery Subsystem <MAILER-DAEMON at kil-sm-1.ucis.dal.ca>
>> To:	<Horand.Gassmann at dal.ca>
>> Subject:	Warning: could not send message for past 4 hours
>>
>>    **********************************************
>>    **      THIS IS A WARNING MESSAGE ONLY      **
>>    **  YOU DO NOT NEED TO RESEND YOUR MESSAGE  **
>>    **********************************************
>>
>> The original message was received at Thu, 3 Feb 2011 10:43:03 -0400 (AST)
>> from GGassmann-2.SBA.Dal.Ca [129.173.124.191]
>>
>>   ----- Transcript of session follows -----
>> ... while talking to list.coin-or.org.:
>>>>> MAIL From:<Horand.Gassmann at dal.ca> SIZE=1802
>> <<< 452 4.4.5 Insufficient disk space; try again later
>> <Os-project-managers at list.coin-or.org>... Deferred: 452 4.4.5  
>> Insufficient disk space; try again later
>> Warning: message still undelivered after 4 hours
>> Will keep trying until message is 5 days old
>>
>> Hi guys,
>>
>> this is a follow-on query to the issue of numberOf...="0" that I  
>> asked previously.
>>
>> In OSoL the <general> element has a number of string-valued children (such
>> as serviceURI, serviceName, instanceName, etc.) These elements have  
>> no default value and no length restriction, so it would seem that,  
>> e.g.,
>>
>> <general>
>> 	<license></license>
>> </general> is a legal OSoL element --- or even
>>
>> <general>
>> 	<license/>
>> </general> My problem then is to distinguish these situations from
>>
>> <general/>
>>
>> or even <osol...></osol>
>>
>> I know that we said earlier with the numberOf... that we will put the
>> child element and treat
>>
>> <variables>
>> 	<initialVariableValues numberOfVar="0"/>
>> </variables>
>>
>> as different from
>>
>> <variables>
>> </variables>
>> even though they are functionally equivalent, but in the string-valued
>> cases this turns out not to be so easy. I don't new the string, and hence I
>> cannot test whether the parser allocated it or not, I can't go by  
>> the length (?)
>> --- it seems that
>>
>> <password></password>
>>
>> should be legal, for instance --- and hence I do not know how to establish
>> equality of two <generalOption> objects. Any ideas?
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> gus
>>
>> ------- End of forwarded message -------
>
>
> -- 
> Kipp Martin
> Professor of Operations Research
> and Computing Technology
> Booth School of Business
> University of Chicago
> 5807 South Woodlawn Avenue
> Chicago, IL 60637
> 773-702-7456
> kmartin at chicagobooth.edu
> http://www.chicagobooth.edu/faculty/bio.aspx?person_id=12825325568
> http://projects.coin-or.org/OS
>
>