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

ihab.awad at gmail.com ihab.awad at gmail.com
Thu Jul 24 21:49:08 CDT 2008

On Thu, Jul 24, 2008 at 3:34 PM, James A. Donald <jamesd at echeque.com> wrote:

> Durable objects need to be updateable, or need to update
> themselves using Bayesian analysis of the evidence.
> Doubtless this can be done, but it is not easy.

I concur with all this but am confused about the Bayesian analysis part.

Neither the registry nor etc/config have provision to
> maintain, or even define, internal consistency.

Yes! So a collection of objects, which define their own consistency
requirements and decide how their state is bound to their behavior, would be
an improvement.

Machines have to represent and handle doubt and uncertainty.
> ... All of which is doable, and doubtless needs to be done,
> but has not been done, and it looks to me like a big
> scary project.


Once again, I predict that this will take
> longer and cost more.

That *particular* form of prediction has proven pretty reliably correct, I'm
sorry to say. :( But what helps is to show the path forward, rather than to
agonize about how long or hard it is. Saying something like, "hey, it's just
like Oracle but with a different metamodel" is one way to begin the
conversation in a way that people can relate to. It's just *one* way. We
need more.


Ihab A.B. Awad, Palo Alto, CA
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.eros-os.org/pipermail/cap-talk/attachments/20080724/3a8c44bd/attachment.html 

More information about the cap-talk mailing list