[cap-talk] "Same" key

David Hopwood david.nospam.hopwood at blueyonder.co.uk
Wed Feb 7 10:59:22 CST 2007


Jonathan S. Shapiro wrote:
> On Wed, 2007-02-07 at 02:30 +0000, David Hopwood wrote:
>>Mark S. Miller wrote:
>>>Bill Frantz wrote:
>>>
>>>>Are the following equivalencies substantially correct?
>>>>
>>>>What the OS view calls an "Object", the language view calls a
>>>>"Composite".
>>>>
>>>>What the OS view calls a "Facet", the language view calls an "Object".
>>>>
>>>>The OS view does not use the term "Composite".
>>>>
>>>>The language view uses the term "Facet" to mean a reference to an object
>>>>which is part of a composite.
>>>
>>>Yes.
>>
>>Where is this "OS view" terminology coming from? I don't recognize it from
>>the documentation associated with any particular capability OS.
> 
> At the very least this is the terminology that Coyotos, EROS, and KeyKOS
> have been using since the the late 1970's, though "facet id" used to be
> called "data byte".

If "facet" were renamed in the obj-cap terminology, would that be sufficient
for you to consider that there is no other conflict (since "composite" can
just as well be used to apply to operating systems)?

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



More information about the cap-talk mailing list