re: Why Aren't Mirrors Canonical

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

Actually, I believe this is not the best way to go--
instead of putting state in and canonizing the mirrors,
I think you should make a new object that contains the state
that uses the mirror as a client.
That way, other folks could write their own kinds of reflection and
still use the base-level mirrors, which only contain protocol
tied to the implementation.

I hope this is clear--

Dave


> R James Noble writes:
> > Can anyone see any problems with this approach? Just out of (self)
> > interest, why aren't mirrors canonical at the VM level? (speed?)
> 
> There's no deep reason, we just didn't think it was necessary.  But
> you have a good point, we should probably change this.  (By the way,
> activation mirrors are canonical even today.)
> 
> -Urs