Hello,
Marcus Brinkmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> At Tue, 18 Oct 2005 14:27:56 -0400,
> "Jonathan S. Shapiro" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> [A broken protocol snipped]
>
>> I believe that the only possible protocol that could be correct is for
>> all object servers to return by way of CapServer.
>
> I agree. This is exactly what I proposed in my talk in Dijon.
>
> The server maps a revocable copy to the cap server. The cap server
> maps another revocable copy to each client.
Marcus, how is this different from what Jonathan described in
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, that is:
In the absence of any authority to fabricate new capabilities, the
following chain of mappings is now in effect after the exchange:
RevCopy RevCopy
A ----------> CapServer -----------> B
It feels like the CapServer thing is anyway quite complex compared to
having a primitive COPY operation.
Thanks,
Ludovic.
_______________________________________________
L4-hurd mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/l4-hurd
