Re: Part 2: System Structure

[Bas Wijnen]

On Mon, May 15, 2006 at 09:26:09PM +0200, Pierre THIERRY wrote:
> I'm not entirely sure that every use of the constructor needs
> encapsulation.

Since the constructor would be used for every process instantiation, obviously
encapsulation isn't always needed.  In fact, it is hardly ever needed.  We're
still trying to find out if we want to support the rare cases where it is.

I think it's not very useful to have a constructor used all the time if the
cases when it's needed are rare at best.

So when I talk about the constructor, I'm talking about an encapsulated child.
Without encapsulation, we don't need the constructor.  Of course it _can_ be
used, but I don't see a reason for it.

> The constructor is also used to ensure the identity of a
> program, and this doesn't need encapsulation (giving away write access
> to the process storage suffices, even write notification to the
> constructor, but this could be less secure or need some overhead).

I don't understand what you mean here.  What is the "identity" of a program?

Thanks,
Bas

-- 
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 http://129.125.47.90/e-mail.html

signature.asc
Description: Digital signature