Hello, I am sorry for this delayed reply. Yes, you are right. The resolution must be: <cdl:system> <app> <user cdl:ref="value" cdl:refroot="toplevel" /> </app> </cdl:system> that is, the reference is not resolvable. I have found other bugs in the valid test set. I am going to commit a corrected version today and give comments on that in this ML Thanks, Jun Guilherme Germoglio wrote:
Hello all,
I think I've found a misinterpretation in cddlm-cdl-2005-02-0018 test.
The cdl file:
<cdl:cdl> <cdl:configuration> <toplevel> <value cdl:lazy="true"/> </toplevel> </cdl:configuration> <cdl:system> <app> <user cdl:ref="value" cdl:refroot="toplevel"/> </app> </cdl:system> </cdl:cdl>
The resolution expected:
<cdl:system> <app> <user cdl:lazy="true"/> </app> </cdl:system>
But the specification states in 7.5.2.2 <http://7.5.2.2> Example: ... A value reference to this property will not be resolved before the resolution of this @cdl:lazy attribute.
So, as the user lazy element in the test was not yet resolved, the reference to it should not be resolved. Is this correct?
If so, the resolution expected must be:
<cdl:system> <app> <user cdl:ref="value" cdl:refroot="toplevel" /> </app> </cdl:system>
The cddlm-cdl-2005-02-invalid-0003.xml test also has a problem. It states that there's an indirect recursive reference. The cdl file follows:
<cdl:cdl> <cdl:configuration> </cdl:configuration> <cdl:system> <app> <hostname cdl:ref="database"/> <database cdl:ref="hostname" /> </app> </cdl:system> </cdl:cdl>
But the resolution algorithm (p18-19) says the that no cdl:ref/cdl:refroot is copied. So there's no recursive reference and it is a valid cdl.
Guilherme