[e-lang] Taming Java Libraries in E vs. Joe-e

[Mark Miller]

Great question! Since taming is a judgment intense process, potentially
fraught with security-critical errors, the Joe-E folks decided to first tame
the Java libraries independently, and then compare the resulting decisions.
Where we largely agree, we're not sure what that means -- we might simply
have been led into making the same errors. But where we disagree, at least
we'll know to pay special attention to those places. Did you see anywhere
where we were both taming the same class but arriving at different taming
decisions?

On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 7:32 PM, Jimmy Wylie <jwylie at uno.edu> wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> I'm working on an undergraduate research project, and decided to try my
> hands at taming sections of the java library.
> I read the following:
>    http://www.erights.org/elib/legacy/taming.html
> and then took a look at the tamed safej libraries in E and then in Joe-e
> to see what's already been done. But surprisingly, I noticed a few
> discrepancies.
>
> Do E and Joe-e have different goals in mind when taming the libraries?
> It seems like a java library tamed to the capability discipline should
> work for any capability language.  So why are those safej classes not
> simply imported to joe-e and vice versa? The most noticeable discrepancy
> I noticed was that E has parts of awt tamed while Joe-e does not, but
> Joe-e seems to have a few classes that E does not have tamed in its
> library.
>
> Thanks for your help,
> Jimmy Wylie
> _______________________________________________
> e-lang mailing list
> e-lang at mail.eros-os.org
> http://www.eros-os.org/mailman/listinfo/e-lang
>



-- 
Text by me above is hereby placed in the public domain

   Cheers,
   --MarkM
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.eros-os.org/pipermail/e-lang/attachments/20081113/bd3cdaa7/attachment.html