[cap-talk] How desirable / feasible is a persistent OCAP language?

Rob Meijer capibara at xs4all.nl
Thu Jul 17 05:33:29 CDT 2008


In discussing MinorFs, and the provision of private storage it offers,
I keep on bringing on the topic of language level persistence being needed
to turn the 'pseudo' persistent processes into real persistent processes.

I personally feel that real persistent processes, (especially when using
an OCAP language to create the code for these processes) would greatly
help in reducing the complexity of least authority design, but given the
fact that this subject to my knowledge has not been more than slightly
touched on this list, I have no way of knowing if this personal stand on
is one that has a general consensus, is by general consensus just
considered clueless, or has both lots of people agreeing and disagreeing.

Next to the desirability question, a second question might be just as
important, how feasible would it be to make one (or more) of the current
OCAP languages into a persistent language, and if its feasible, would the
private storage facility offered by MinorFs be sufficient to make making
that language persistent be sufficient to make image storage completely
adhere to POLA itself.

Thus my question to all the OCAP language people, and to the people with
persistence at the OS level experience is:

How desirable / feasible  is a persistent OCAP language?



T.I.A.

Rob J Meijer



More information about the cap-talk mailing list