>>>>> "NH" == Norman Hardy <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
NH> I talked briefly with Markm yesterday about his conversations with NH> others about our capability concepts.
NH> Reflecting on this later it occurred to me that we may not say, or say NH> often enough, that capabilities must be the only naming scheme on the NH> system level! NH> I went back to my glossary NH> <http://www.mediacity.com/~norm/CapTheory/Glossary.html#What.html> andNH> found that my brief intro could be read as allowing capabilities to be NH> but one way of designating objects.
When I checkd that page it ended with the entry "Virtual".
NH> I changed it but I have not figured out how to say what I want without NH> sounding overly dogmatic.
NH> I think that we agree that all sucessful capability systems "bottom NH> out" in capabilities as names.
Hmm, how does that go together with, say, password capabilities? They consist of a UID and a password. The UID take by itself names an object.
Or am I missing something?
-- Gernot Heiser ,--_|\ School of Computer Sci. & Engin. Phone: +61 2 9385 5156 / \ The University of NSW Fax: +61 2 9385 5533 \_,--._* UNSW SYDNEY NSW 2052, Australia E-mail: email@example.com v http://www.cse.unsw.edu.au/~gernot PGP fingerprint: 94 1E B8 28 25 FD 7C 94 20 10 92 E5 0B FF 39 8F