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

Re: Security design [was Re: Security in Self]

To: burdick@ars.rtp.nc.us, self-interest@otis.stanford.edu
Subject: Re: Security design [was Re: Security in Self]
From: David.Ungar@Eng.Sun.COM (David Ungar)
Date: Wed, 13 Apr 1994 13:56:54 +0800
Resent-date: Wed, 13 Apr 1994 13:56:54 +0800
Resent-from: Bay.Chang@Eng.Sun.COM (Bay-Wei Chang [CONTRACTOR])
Resent-message-id: <9404132359.AA10340@traits.Eng.Sun.COM>
Resent-to: real-self-interest@self.stanford.edu

Very interesting!
I am not sure about this for the invarient maintenance problem,
it seems to force inheritance links where there would not be any.
In other words, two methods that conspire to maintain some invarient
need not be in the same traits object, or even in the same part of the
inheritance graph.
But, if you are going after some other goal for privacy, then
that's a different story.

Great to hear that you are doing your own take on Self!!


-- Dave

Prev by Date: Security design [was Re: Security in Self]
Next by Date: Re: Summary of copy-on-write
Previous by thread: Security design [was Re: Security in Self]
Next by thread: Re: Security design [was Re: Security in Self]
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread