[cap-talk] Can Capabilities be configured?
john.carlson3 at sbcglobal.net
Wed Apr 7 02:20:28 PDT 2010
Oh, yeah, there's revoking too.
On Apr 7, 2010, at 2:08 AM, John Carlson wrote:
> You might be able to configure capabilities with aspects, but aspects tend to violate capabilities.
> Look for attenuating capabilities--removing permissions in a deep tree-like structure (like a file system).
> On Mar 17, 2010, at 11:24 AM, Yuvaraj Athur Raghuvir wrote:
>> I have just started looking into Capability based Objects and learning E. I am impressed by how the simple and powerful the Granovetter Diagram is. The E language design is interesting and I am enjoying the way the language has been designed.
>> After understanding the difference between the Capabilities and Access Control Lists (ACLs), one question that came up in my mind was how to 'externally configure' capabilities.
>> In a way this an oxymoron as capabilities are designed to be granted to enable use. However, in real life situations of software use, it seems that all possibilities of flow of capabilities might not be possible to define up front and so embed that flow in code. It seems to me that ACLs are successful because of the late configuration possibility - the custodians of a resource can decide who has access and this is recorded in a look-up table.
>> 1) Can capabilities be late configured?
>> 2)Will that violate the fundamental principles of how capabilities are designed?
>> 3) If late configuration is possible, is there a pattern that shows how this can be done?
>> cap-talk mailing list
>> cap-talk at mail.eros-os.org
> cap-talk mailing list
> cap-talk at mail.eros-os.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the cap-talk