[cap-talk] Another "core" principle

[Marcus Brinkmann]

At Wed, 20 Dec 2006 15:52:40 -0800,
Jed at Webstart <donnelley1 at webstart.com> wrote:
> I don't believe there is anything in the basic capability paradigm
> that makes this so and I believe the object/capability paradigm
> can handle this situation - without having to trigger a massive
> re population of capabilities in Carol's directories and without
> requiring re delegation by Carol (e.g. to Dave) and similar
> repopulation of directories all the way down the chain - where
> of course knowledge of this event should (and I argue can)
> be largely unknown.

I don't think there is anything intrinsically wrong with repopulating
them, as long as it could be automatic.  However, I think I would
explore a system design first where all delegations are explicit in
the manner that if Alice wants Bob to delegate a capability from Alice
to Carol directly, without going through Bob, then Bob should have the
authority to do just that, in some automatic fashion.

But I have to admit I haven't caught up with the latest email storm,
so I don't know if it has been discussed before and if any problems
with that have been identified.  I didn't really get the connection
between the membrane discussion and the group management discussion,
they seem to me to be quite orthogonal.

I merely want to point out that the design space is rather large, and
even primitive operations that do not directly translate to the high
level constructs you want to build can be meaningful or appropriate.

Thanks,
Marcus