[cap-talk] Cap OS question

[Sam Mason]

On Mon, Aug 03, 2009 at 12:36:21AM +0800, Ben Kloosterman wrote:
> Unsafe code will be limited eg no user apps will support it . Note CIL (
> bytecode) assemblies with unsafe code on them are marked unsafe and the OS
> will compile all bytecode during installation so we can choose note to
> compile these ( there is also the reference checks) . The other change is
> MetaData/Reflection will be limited eg no support for Emitting code ,
> reading the underlying bytes or private members.

That all sounds well and good.

> I was thinking of making Capabilies contain a reference ( which is fine if
> they are stored in the kernel)

I think you're misunderstand me; what's wrong with just making a
capability be a normal object reference? i.e. it sounds as though you're
proposing to have a "Capability" class and then have methods in this
class that does invocation.  You've got a nice safe language why not
exploit it to its full potential?

> but the main issues are
> 1) Persistence so would need to store a reference that is not a memory
> address when storing on disk. 

What sort of garbage collection are you doing?  If you're doing say a
copying collector then you must be able to deal with objects moving
anyway and this should just be able to use the same mechanisms.

> 2) How to handle the access rights and where does the logic go . In the
> capability ? 

Access rights belong in the object the capability points to.

-- 
  Sam  http://samason.me.uk/