[cap-talk] gauntlet - one way IPC considered practically useless

[norm]

I just noticed this 6 months old thread. I was not following the list closely at that time.
I have not entirely digested the content of the thread.
A similar question arose in another context this April.
At that time I wrote a note on simplex communications channels into a confined compartment.
See <http://cap-lore.com/CapTheory/KK/Simplex/>.
The solutions are in the Keykos context. It wasn't hard but neither was it trivial.
The solution relies on the non-standard Keykos subroutine mechanism which is a style of 
'continuations'.
(See <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuation_passing_style>.)

On Jan 19, 2006, at 11:27 AM, Jed at Webstart wrote:

At 08:14 PM 1/13/2006, John C. McCabe-Dansted wrote:
On Saturday 14 January 2006 04:23, Ian G wrote:
> John C. McCabe-Dansted wrote:
> > David Wagner suggested that it is impossible to write reliable software
> > without bidirectional communication. I am not yet convinced this is the
> > case.
>
> As a generalism I think it is quite true, and I'd
> be fascinated if you could find a case where you
> could challenge it.  As a comp sci problem it is
> called "the coordination problem" I gather although
> there isn't an easy / good reference for it.
>
> One of the common things that happens is that designs
> ignore this and use uni-directional comms.  Then,
> the software becomes "unreliable" and as a consequence
> users implement a reliability protocol over the top,
> often in meatspace not digitalspace.

I understand that "the coordination problem" cannot be solved by
bi-directional communication.

Did you mean one way communication above?  Or perhaps you meant
can be solved over one way communication?  The coordination problem
certainly can be solved over bi-directional communication as that is
the common case I think.
.......



Norm Hardy: <http://cap-lore.com>

Nothing has an uglier look to us than reason, when it is not on our side.
Lord Halifax


Norm Hardy <http://cap-lore.com>