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

Toby Murray toby.murray at comlab.ox.ac.uk
Thu Jul 17 05:54:09 CDT 2008


On Thu, 2008-07-17 at 12:33 +0200, Rob Meijer wrote:
> 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.

E is a persistent object-capability language. Unfortunately, it's
persistence features are not well documented but to get an idea of how
it works, see [1], that includes the code for a persistent
capability-based chat client.

[1]
http://wiki.erights.org/wiki/Walnut/Persistent_Secure_Distributed_Computing




> 
> 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
> 
> _______________________________________________
> cap-talk mailing list
> cap-talk at mail.eros-os.org
> http://www.eros-os.org/mailman/listinfo/cap-talk



More information about the cap-talk mailing list