[cap-talk] Terminology and soap box

[Ian G]

David's list is very useful in nailing down what it
is that is capabilities.  But in the end it simply
reads to me as objects.  I.e., OO.  It may be
that there is a difference, but I'm now sufficiently
comfortable that I'd declare capabilities to be OO
perhaps with a stress that it works across a net.

Jed, I wonder if you are too steeped in the inside
minutae to see that the list is not aimed at you,
but at me -- the external engineer, trying to figure
out what is caps and what not?  For me, the list
works, and I wouldn't take anything out.


> OK, here's my soap box appeal:
> 
> Join me my brothers!  Capability systems of the world, Unite!!
> Together we can redefine the world in our image!  Together we
> can lead the world out of confused separations of designation
> and authorization to a better world of POLA!   Let us join together
> in a common alliance across all systems, across all networks!
> Let us join with our capability brethren in network standards
> to spread capabilities to the darkest and most confused
> non-POLA corners of our computing universe!  Let us bind
> together designation and authorization and insure that there will
> never again be failed and confused efforts to block delegation
> of permission across communication channels!  Together we
> can do it.  United we stand, divided we fall!


Here's my soap box response:  capabilities is indistinguishable
from the concepts (not the practice) of object orientation.
At the detail of course we can argue, but such things are the
normal arguments around the tea-room in the comp sci campus,
not the discussions of engineering and projects.

In the grand scheme of things, instead of trying to fight it,
why not try and accomodate it?  That is, move to take over the
OO beast from inside.

Otherwise, I would make the observation that after many years
of looking and listening and arguing, capabilities has failed
to distinguish itself in any meaningful sense from OO, to my
mind at least.

Just IMHO.

iang