[cap-talk] "Same" key

David Hopwood david.nospam.hopwood at blueyonder.co.uk
Mon Feb 5 09:40:32 CST 2007


Jonathan S. Shapiro wrote:
> On Sun, 2007-02-04 at 14:19 -0800, Dean Tribble wrote:
> 
>>Thus, the notion of objects is confusing, but the notion of references
>>remains coherent.  It's the references that are capabilities,
>>comparable, etc.  I think this perspective is coherent, and I expect
>>that we can find consistent terminology for discussing it, mostly by
>>not trying to have a single term "object" that simultaneously means
>>the implementation artifacts for an abstraction, the client's
>>perspective on the abstraction, and the reference distinctions in the
>>abstraction.
> 
> Dean:
> 
> Thank you for an excellent summary of the problem here!

What is the problem? I don't see one.

The concept of "something you can invoke" is absolutely basic to all
capability systems. Yes, it exposes the implementation of abstractions.
*It's supposed to.* To model systems at a higher level (or several higher
levels) in order to abstract away from implementation, the obj-cap model
has "composites" and "facets".

-- 
David Hopwood <david.nospam.hopwood at blueyonder.co.uk>



More information about the cap-talk mailing list