[cap-talk] Regarding AMQP Messaging paradigm and pattern in E

[John Carlson]

Likes this.

However, one is still left with how to introduce participants to each other, with which requires a directory of some kind (phone book, same room, webpage, X.500, AD, ph, email, IRC, AIM, PKI, iChat, GoogleTalk, MSN, Skype, various groups, dating service etc. etc -- SSL/TLS required).  And if you have a directory, you need some way to prevent spamming.  Hence, only one capability from the first party (potential spam) to request communication, and a reply capability to say communication is okay from the second party.  I believe some kind of identity is unavoidable.  I am not sure why identity seems to be anathema in some capability circles (those that wish to remain anonymous?).  Whoever invented identity was a genius.  Then there was Aristotle and things went downhill into a morass of incompatibility.  Perhaps rescued by the idea of an interface--based on behavior, not structure.   We're less concerned with how many legs something has, that what it can be used for.

Does Google Voice use capabilities?

John
On Apr 5, 2010, at 7:00 PM, Zooko O'Whielacronx wrote:

> You might be interested in this article:
> 
> http://hopper.squarespace.com/blog/2009/1/22/capabilities-for-messaging.html
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Zooko
> _______________________________________________
> cap-talk mailing list
> cap-talk at mail.eros-os.org
> http://www.eros-os.org/mailman/listinfo/cap-talk