[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: design goals vs mechanisms

From: Bas Wijnen
Subject: Re: design goals vs mechanisms
Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2005 11:38:06 +0200
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.11

Please remove the parts of the original mail that you aren't replying to, it
makes the result much easier to read.

On Wed, Oct 26, 2005 at 10:56:47PM +0200, ness wrote:
> Bas Wijnen wrote:
> >
> >Ok, so the current list of goals is:
> >- persistance
> As marcus already mentioned, persistence is not a goal. It's a mechanism.

Marcus said it could be a goal, and it could be a mechanism for other goals.
Marcus seems to think that we do not want persistence as a goal (that is, it
is not something which we should aim for), but we will probably need it as a
mechanism for other goals.  I think we may want it as a goal by itself as
well (unplugging the computer without need for explicit recovery is a nice
thing), but probably low priority, so it may very well be dropped.  However,
that doesn't mean we don't do it: if we need it for a goal which we keep, then
obviously we use it as a mechanism.


I encourage people to send encrypted e-mail (see http://www.gnupg.org).
If you have problems reading my e-mail, use a better reader.
Please send the central message of e-mails as plain text
   in the message body, not as HTML and definitely not as MS Word.
Please do not use the MS Word format for attachments either.
For more information, see

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]