[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: Symbolic names vs. port references

From: olafBuddenhagen
Subject: Re: Symbolic names vs. port references
Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2009 05:34:15 +0200
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.19 (2009-01-05)


On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 03:32:09PM +0200, Carl Fredrik Hammar wrote:

> The first one I have considered is the ability to load different but
> compatible versions of the module.  For instance, so that one can load
> a module with debugging symbols when debugging.
> Though this is mostly a convenience issue.  Because the module can be
> seen as a part of the server, it is reasonable to state that the
> server if the server can't provide a trusted module then it's a bug in
> the server (or its setup).

I subscribe to this conclusion, and in fact would extend it to the
debugging case: I always insisted that migration should be a mostly
transparent mechanism -- the fact that the code actually runs in the
receiver is an implementation detail; things should look just as if it
was still in the sender. I don't think it's important to be able to
debug a module after migration -- just debug the server itself...


reply via email to

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