[cap-talk] Process object -> "Subject" - the saga continues

[David Hopwood]

Karp, Alan H wrote:
> Let me see if I understand what's going on.  Jed wants to make clear the
> distinction between active entities (subjects) and passive ones
> (objects).  David Hopwood points out that there's no operational
> difference between the two, so that only one name is needed.
> 
> We had a similar problem in e-speak.  Everything was handled the same
> way, so we only needed one term.  The problem was which term to use,
> resource or service.  We could use the term "resource", but many people
> had trouble thinking of an active entity, such as a file system, as a
> resource.  We could use the term "service", but people had trouble
> thinking of a file as a service.  In the end, we settled on "service",
> but I think that was a mistake.  We should have kept both terms, and I
> think that's what we should do here.

My point is that (for capability systems) the distinction is totally
artificial, and depends on an implementation detail. There is only one
basic concept here, and it does not depend on whether objects are passive,
active or reactive. Those are qualifiers describing particular object
*implementations*.

If people don't understand that the concept covers passive, active and
reactive resources or services, then that point must be explained. No matter
what term is chosen, it won't have the right implications for some people,
so we will have to be content with a term that is reasonably well-motivated
and not gratuitously inconsistent with current and historical usage.
"Object" will do fine.

-- 
David Hopwood <david.nospam.hopwood at blueyonder.co.uk>