Fw: Has Oz Come Up in This Forum?
Mark S. Miller
Mon, 24 Jan 2000 14:19:27 -0800
At 02:07 AM 1/24/00 , Seif Haridi wrote:
>This email is to Mark.
Hi Seif, if you want to contact me privately, I can be reached at
firstname.lastname@example.org. My preference is that correspondence of general E
interest include the list, so I am doing so in my response.
>Mark, you know me! I used to cooperate with Ken and Vijay Saraswat, and I wanted
>to contact you for while! I am codesigner of Oz, and co-designer of distributed
>support (together with Per Van Roy and Per Brand).
Yes, I remember you too! Good to hear from you again.
>First Oz is a direct descendent of concurrent logic/constraint programming where
>lots of shortcommings there were removed.
>We are currently working on SECURE GLOBAL computing is Mozart (where encryption will
>be used). Ken has suggested for a while to contact you, and it seems this is the
>I will send you soon my slides on our recent project started this year called SEFTS
>(SEcurity, Fault-Tolerance and Scalibility in distributed computing) where you will
>our current thinking.
>Shortly the current state of Mozart is that it supports a lot of security issues and
>control IF things are written in Mozart, and some things for malicious users (e.g.
>code verification). The next step is to handle hostile environments and that is what
>I would like to get in touch with you to discuss further!
It sounds like it will be fascinating to compare approaches. We look
forward to hearing more. Given your starting point, I suspect we have
similar views of concurrency & distribution. However, I'm quite curious to
hear your views on security & persistence. Our view of security is
summarized well by http://www.erights.org/elib/capability/ode/ . Our view
of persistence is not yet stated clearly anywhere (perhaps our discussion
will prod me into doing so), but I leave you for now with the mysterious
(and over-simplified) comment that I no longer believe in orthogonal
Another general issue who's importance is only now becoming clear to me is
distributed linking under mutual suspicion. I explain the problem in
http://eros.cis.upenn.edu/%7Emajordomo/e-lang/1270.html . The
not-yet-written Part 3 will explain the solution I have in mind. Since the
problem seems universal, I'm wondering if you have an approach to this as well.
A potentially useful comparison exercise to explore: Since we both have
small kernel languages, we might want to see what it looks like to implement
either kernel in the other. This is usually a good way to start comparing
expressiveness issues. I currently don't see the "constraint-based
inferencing" as relevant to E's goals (though I'm certainly willing to let
you try to persuade me). OTOH, the "fault tolerance", if achieved in a way
consistent with our other goals, would be *extremely* valuable to us.