Re: Persistence and Transactions

[David.Ungar@Eng.Sun.COM (Dave Ungar)]

Gordon,

If you have a chance I would love to hear more about
the semantic changes that would be needed.
How many of them could be built within the language as new objects and control
structures?

Thanks

Dave

>  In addition, I have been considering using SELF as the main programming
> language for a transactional based persistent distributed object store which I
> have been working on for some time. SELF appears to offer an efficient
> type of language which makes its choice as a standard language attractive.
> However, its lack of key features, such as transaction control, locking,
> distribution, and persistence, means that I will have to fudge the language
> semantics. Mind you, considering the complexity of SELF, the first version
> of this is liable to be a cut-down version of the language (microSELF?).
> Maybe I could use uPSELF (persistent)? In fact, I will go and write that one
> down :-).
> 
> I have to agree that the other languages I have looked at (C/C++, Ada, etc)
> would require similar semantic distortions to allow programming of my
> store, but SELF has the advantage of being clean, new, and object-oriented
> (truelly). Tasking would be nice though....
> 
>  Gordon
>