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

Rob Meijer capibara at xs4all.nl
Fri Jul 25 03:18:08 CDT 2008

On Fri, July 25, 2008 04:59, Sandro Magi wrote:
> Jonathan S. Shapiro wrote:
>> On Fri, 2008-07-25 at 08:34 +1000, James A. Donald wrote:
>>> Neither the registry nor etc/config have provision to
>>> maintain, or even define, internal consistency.
>> I agree with this statement. That said, the registry is better
>> than /etc/config (/etc/sysconfig?), because:
>>   1. It has a well-defined name space.
>>   2. It has a schema for well-formedness. That is not the same
>>      as consistency, but it is a step in the right direction.
> Except the registry is also far less user friendly to view and manage
> than something filesystem based. Persistent data is only as good as the
> tools you have to manage it.
> Sandro

I feel that comparing the registry with /etc/* is a false comparison.
Given the registry actually implies both /etc/* and /var/*, and in order
to be comparable.

I feel /etc is better than registry while /var/ may be worse
in many cases. The reason for this is the mutability scope of data stored
in these. Limiting the scope of mutability is IMO essential for POLA.

To me this means we should strive to make the granularity of 'private'
mutable storage as fine grained as possible.


More information about the cap-talk mailing list