[cap-talk] Objects and Facets
norm at cap-lore.com
Mon Aug 7 20:34:55 EDT 2006
On Aug 7, 2006, at 4:39 PM, Mark Miller wrote:
> On 8/7/06, Charles Landau <clandau at macslab.com> wrote:
>> This sounds just like the "no facet" view I described. It's great to
>> know we're in agreement on this.
>>> For descriptive purposes, we often want to aggregate several
>>> objects into one
>>> composite. Such aggregation is purely subjective.
>> We are in complete agreement.
>>> In KeyKOS, a natural
>>> descriptive aggregate for many purposes is the process (domain)
>>> together with
>>> all the keys which designate the root node of that process (all
>>> start keys,
>>> domain key, node key).
>> Now I'm confused. A composite is an aggregation of objects, but keys
>> are not objects, so why do you include those keys in the composite? I
>> think you mean, all the objects designated by those keys.
>> In fact I think it would be correct to just say that the composite is
>> all the objects designated by those keys, and omit the phrase "the
>> process (domain) together with" above. The process alone isn't a
>> well-defined object; it would work as a name for this composite.
>>> Given some descriptive composite, those objects within
>>> the composite which are potentially designatable from outside the
>>> are facets of the composite.
>> For example, a start key with a particular facet id, which is outside
>> the composite, designates an object in the composite and is a facet
>> of the composite.
>> Unfortunately, we need some better terminology for describing
>> composites, which is why many people are using the term "object" when
>> they mean composite.
> David's suggestion of "component" isn't bad. I haven't thought of
> anything better.
Component sounds like a part of something else, What is a component
I don't understand where you propose to use "facet" in the new scheme
If you say that a facet is an object that holds a capability to the
underlying object, you are over-specifying the implementation.
Perhaps your terminology keeps you from being necessarily
noncommittal about implementation.
My definition of the up-down counter said nothing about the nature of
the returned keys, except for the meaning of their invocation.
If there is a one-to-one correspondence between capabilities of
objects, as you propose, then most contexts can use "capability" but
I agree you need two terms conceptually.
I think we agree on ontology but not terminology.
Category --- proposed name
Designators; states of slots --- key, capability
Things designated --- (I like facet; you like object)
Site of state --- (I like object, you like composite(?))
It feels to me like we have somehow shifted terminology left by one
(or right) and thereby have lost use of a perfectly good word with
I can say an object bundles behavior(s) and state. What will you say?
> Text by me above is hereby placed in the public domain
> cap-talk mailing list
> cap-talk at mail.eros-os.org
More information about the cap-talk