[cap-talk] Capability-based Projects - theory vs. practice

[Mark Miller]

On 8/2/07, Jed Donnelley <jed at nersc.gov> wrote:
>  However, I note that if we take that tact then we significantly
>  thin the ranks of 'capability' systems.  By that criteria I think
>  we must eliminate all the language based systems, Emerald,
>  Network Objects, and E just as examples that come to mind?

> 1973: Actors - MIT *******
> 1985: Emerald - University of Washington *********
> 1990: Joule - Los Altos ????? (Los Altos??)
> 1995: Original-E - Electric Communities *****
> 1996: W7 - MIT *****
> 1997: SLK/J-Kernel Cornel ?????
> 1999: E Language *****

For at least Joule, Original-E, and E, their persistent protection
state was also simply capabilities, and so should be marked with a
<<<<. For Actors this is also true in theory, but I don't know if this
was ever embodied in persistent practice. For the others on your list
above, I don't know what their persistence story was, if anything.
It's a neglected but important question.

-- 
Text by me above is hereby placed in the public domain

    Cheers,
    --MarkM