At Tue, 18 Oct 2005 14:27:56 -0400, Jonathan S. Shapiro wrote: > I believe that the only possible protocol that could be correct is for > all object servers to return by way of CapServer. In practice, this > makes locally trusted CapServers impossible, because a general-purpose > server cannot make assumptions about how the objects it creates will > later be transferred.
I'm having difficult understanding this paragraph. What does "return by way of CapServer" mean? Does it mean that when a server returns, it doesn't respond directly to the caller but has the capserver respond to the caller? Why types of assumptions can't a server make about how the objects it creates will later be transferred? Do you mean, for instance, if a server uses the cap server any client must also use the cap server to transfer the capability? I don't think this example is true as a client can still provide revocable mappings. Thanks, Neal _______________________________________________ L4-hurd mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/l4-hurd
