[cap-talk] Why is EQ so dang fascinating?
clandau at macslab.com
Mon Nov 5 16:08:11 EST 2007
At 11:34 AM -0800 11/5/07, Jed Donnelley wrote:
>On 11/5/2007 11:09 AM, Charles Landau wrote:
>> With EQ, the bank wouldn't need to invoke a malicious purse, and I
>> would always know any slow response would be the fault of the bank.
>Doesn't MyCap suffice for the above? That is, isn't the purse
>a capability supported by the bank? If you are going to try to
>arrange to be able to only blame the bank (or whatever single
>service), then it seems that all related capability invocations
>must be internal to that one service - hence subject to MyCap
>rather than the more general EQ. Right?
At 11:09 AM -0800 11/5/07, Charles Landau wrote:
>I'm curious how you would design a robust protocol in the above
>example, without using timeout or EQ.
Still curious, without timeout or EQ or MyCap.
More information about the cap-talk