[cap-talk] A Taxonomy of Current Object-Cap Systems

Marcus Brinkmann marcus.brinkmann at ruhr-uni-bochum.de
Thu Mar 5 15:53:30 EST 2009

Toby Murray wrote:
> If a systems is missing above that you think should be included, please
> let me know.


> If you think there are distinctive features any current systems that
> should be included in the list above, please let me know. My main
> criterion for inclusion here is that a feature must affect the way
> object-capability programmers might program in the system and the sorts
> of things that can be expressed in the system. 

Operating systems usually provide low level primitives for interprocess
communication that can then be used to build an object system on top of that.
 In addition, the kernel implements its own objects according to some
conventions.  This makes it difficult to give a single definitive answer, as
kernel-implemented objects can behave significantly different from
user-implemented objects, which also can cover quite a range of behaviour.

A taxonomy for operating systems would thus ask for properties of the IPC
system, and, also important, for properties of the resource management

Well, I can tell you that Mach supports synchronous and asynchronous message
send and receive between threads and provides a full EQ? operation for all
kernel-implemented objects.


More information about the cap-talk mailing list