> > Why would state need to be serializable?
>
> I meant: in a non-persistent system. The reason for my
> question is that Jonathan concluded that persistence is
> mostly "a matter of taste".
> Passive translators seem to be a counter-example.
>
Ah. Well, it seems to me that capabilities must not be serializable. If they
could be, what would stop a thread from modifying the capabilities as they
flowed back to the kernel? If the serializing entity was part of the TCB, then
you have to implement a certain amount of persistence anyway. Once you start
implementing persistence by degrees you run into a whole bunch of edge cases
where it's just easier to implement system-wide persistence anyway. That's
been my experience, in any case.
-={C}=-
_______________________________________________
L4-hurd mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/l4-hurd
