Capabilities by any other name

Marc Stiegler marcs@skyhunter.com
Tue, 9 Nov 1999 18:55:32 -0700


I am reluctant to endorse "cap" all by itself as a name because this
syllable has too many meanings; I dislike "ref" because I use that to just
mean object references that have no security implications (and so do other
people); starting from Ping's "capability keys", how about "capkeys"?

Just stirring the pot :-)

--marcs

----- Original Message -----
From: Tyler Close <tyler@waterken.com>
To: Ka-Ping Yee <ping@lfw.org>; Douglas Crockford <crock@communities.com>
Cc: <shapj@us.ibm.com>; <e-lang@eros-os.org>
Sent: Tuesday, November 09, 1999 5:01 PM
Subject: RE: Capabilities by any other name


> Ping wrote:
> > Here are some terms i would be comfortable with:
> >
> >     "capabilities"
> >     "capability pointers"
> >     "capability keys"
> >     "object keys"
> >     "object capability security"
> >     "object-based security"