[cap-talk] What sustained interest in capabilities

[Mitsu Hadeishi]

On Jan 8, 2009, at 2:09 AM, David-Sarah Hopwood wrote:
>
> What I said was "APIs that depend too much on an existing non- 
> capability
> OS". That is not the same thing as "APIs that depend on ACLs".
>
> For example, E-on-Java makes many tamed Java APIs available to E  
> programs.
> Those APIs are not dependent on ACLs or any non-capability approach to
> security, but they are very much dependent on Java, and are difficult
> to reimplement. So while the E language has several other  
> implementations,
> many E programs will not run on those implementations. This  
> portability
> problem would not have occurred if more of the E API had been designed
> and implemented from scratch.

Okay, I see what you mean.  But in this case, the web service approach  
I'm referring to is in fact far less dependent upon underlying API  
details, for the simple reason that web service interfaces tend to be  
more abstract and general.  As I noted, the approach we took with our  
design was to maximize the genericity and simplicity of the  
interfaces; that was one of our explicit design goals for business  
reasons.

Mitsu