[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: Part 2: System Structure

From: Pierre THIERRY
Subject: Re: Part 2: System Structure
Date: Mon, 15 May 2006 18:15:18 +0200
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.11+cvs20060403

Scribit Bas Wijnen dies 15/05/2006 hora 17:29:
> As far as I know, storage is the only resource for which the opacity
> property makes any sense.  Am I missing something?

As I did not dig this issue very much, I wouldn't be able to confirm.

> It depends on what you call transparent.  With the constructor as
> Jonathan wants it, _every_ subprocess receives such an opaque donation
> of its storage.

Were did you read that. That's not how I understood it.

> While it is transparent in the sense that the user knows about it, it
> doesn't actually give the user any choice.

If the initial design of the constructor is that the user has no choice
(which I'm not convinced of), then nothing prevents us to implement it
in such a way that the user has to give authority to opacify a storage.
If the user doesn't want opacity, then either the program could be
started in transparent storage, without anything the user should not see
(like the high score capability) or the program won't start if it is not
allowed to be started in this way.

> > The constructor has no right to opcacify a resource donated by the
> > user.  It has to ask the user for the authority to do it. So the
> > user would never make opaque donation without knowing what he is
> > doing.
> No, that's not how it works.  The constructor only accepts opaque
> storage.  So if the user wants to use a constructor, she _must_ give
> opaque storage, or the constructor will refuse to use it.

Naturally. But the user has still the choice. If the program is designed
to use an opaque storage, of course the user as to give it opaque
storage to use it. But the user should see a dialog popping that ask if
he really wants to give that authority ot the program.

> The constructor satisfies Awareness by removing the choice and
> assuming that the user is aware of the default. Doesn't sound good to
> me.

To me neither. That's not how I see it.

Nowhere man
OpenPGP 0xD9D50D8A

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

reply via email to

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