[E-Lang] New Page: Partially Ordered Message Delivery

Mark S. Miller markm@caplet.com
Wed, 28 Feb 2001 11:31:51 -0800

[Dean, be sure not to miss the question for you below.  --MarkM]

At 02:53 AM Wednesday 2/28/01, Tyler Close wrote:
>[...] There are also
>non-performance reasons for this goal, but I probably shouldn't get
>into them right now. I guess I'll just say that one of my goals with
>Droplets is to be able to treat any Web site as if it were a Vat. Most
>web sites don't support reference forking.

Actually, I would appreciate it if you would get into it.  Even on so little 
information, I already like the smell of this argument.

At 02:53 AM Wednesday 2/28/01, Tyler Close wrote:
>(Assuming we
>keep Joule-style ordering of messages, as Dean and MarcS have
>convinced me we should.)

>5) All arguments in an eventual send message are copies of their
>   local representations. Copying a PassByRelay reference creates
>   a new PassByRelay reference that marks the beginning of a new
>   timeline for messages directed at the indicated target object.
>   This new timeline is in no way connected to the timeline of the
>   copied reference.
>This is basically Joule message ordering.

Before this message, I had no idea you agreed that successive messages on 
the same reference should be delivered in the order they are sent (the two 
party full-order case).  With this agreement, our positions are now 
substantially closer.

Since you now agree with two party full-order, could you restate your 
proposed non-fail-stop semantics of message delivery in this context?  I 
think the two issues are crucially tied together.

As to the three-party controversy -- forking-order vs independent-order -- 
before continuing I'd like to hear from Dean on what Joule's semantics 
actually are.  Not as an argument (despite empirical evidence to the 
contrary, Joule's choices aren't necessarily right ;)) but for orientation 
and terminology as we continue the discussion.