kenton at google.com
Thu Mar 4 07:58:17 PST 2010
On Thu, Mar 4, 2010 at 7:18 AM, Kevin Reid <kpreid at mac.com> wrote:
> But it is also too generic. It does not have any components which
> distinguish our approach from any other concept of “security” within
> an object-oriented system — particularly ones which are call-stack-
> examination based.
As I see it, the fact that a mechanism has been used in object-oriented
systems does not make that mechanism object-oriented. Singletons, for
example, aren't object-oriented; they're precisely the opposite, and OO
developers are now coming around to this fact. Same goes for a security
mechanism that is based on examining the call stack. That's not
object-oriented, and so cannot be called "object-oriented security".
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the cap-talk