[cap-talk] A Taxonomy of Current Object-Cap Systems
clandau at macslab.com
Thu Mar 5 17:15:55 EST 2009
Mark Seaborn wrote:
> Are you only considering pure capability systems? Unix file
> descriptors, and in particular Unix domain sockets could go on the
> list. The comparison would be useful, considering that sockets are
> connection-based (unlike EROS/CapROS/Coyotos and typical
> language-based objects) and often not message-based.
I don't see the distinction. EROS/CapROS/Coyotos capabilities can be to
objects that represent a session or connection.
Rob Meijer wrote:
> In my view UNIX domain sockets when used for IPC have all the properties
> needed to be considered object capabilities. IMHO to turn a multi process
> application using UNIX domain sockets for IPC into an object capability
> system, all what is needed is to take away everything that could be
> considered to be ambient authority.
AFAIK it's not possible to send a socket through a pipe. That would
either disqualify them, or call for another taxon: whether capabilities
can be sent in messages.
More information about the cap-talk