[cap-talk] objects and facets

[Valerio Bellizzomi]

On 30/12/2006, at 17.08, Jonathan S. Shapiro wrote:

>On Sat, 2006-12-30 at 21:41 +0000, David Hopwood wrote:
>> Jonathan S. Shapiro wrote:
>> > On Sat, 2006-12-30 at 18:58 +0000, David Hopwood wrote:
>> > 
>> >>>What about "interface" as a replacement for "facet" ?
>> >>
>> >>It conflicts with existing uses of "interface", e.g. as a type
>specifying a
>> >>set of required method signatures.
>> > 
>> > Umm. Not really. This is *precisely* what is being declared in
CapIDL.
>> 
>> I don't see your point. CapIDL does indeed allow declaring interface
>types, but
>> they are not the same things as facets as defined in MarkM's thesis.
>> ...
>> How would you express this assertion in the terminology where "facet"
>has been
>> replaced by "interface"?
>
>Since I cannot figure out what the assertion means, I can't. I don't use
>the term "facet" in the way that MarkM does. I use the term "facet"
>interchangeably with the term "interface".

If the following make some sense:
- a parameter convention is an interface between functions
- a facet is an interface between objects
- a membrane is an interface between subjects
- an IPC convention is an interface between domains

Then the term "interface" is a general term, as such it should be
interchangeable with all of the above terms when we talk in generalized or
abstract form.


>
>-- 
>Jonathan S. Shapiro, Ph.D.
>Managing Director
>The EROS Group, LLC
>+1 443 927 1719 x5100
>
>_______________________________________________
>cap-talk mailing list
>cap-talk at mail.eros-os.org
>http://www.eros-os.org/mailman/listinfo/cap-talk