At Wed, 06 Apr 2005 18:40:18 +0100, Neal H. Walfield wrote: > A major problem right now is the lack of capability passing. Getting > the initial next step working will be possible without this, however, > this is a hard requirement for dynamically open objects on servers.
The reason this was delayed (among others like lack of time) is that with the upcoming next generation of L4 the cap system is in major upheaval. This is both good and bad. Good, because the next generation of L4 is potentially much better, but also bad because it requires us to rethink a lot of the design (and in fact, if the next generation L4 falls short, we are in trouble). I have done some very deep thinking on this, and there are several major conclusions so far. More to come. There is a good argument to be made to implement some sort of capability passing anyway just to get on with the rest of the code. OTOH, there is also potential to just implement the new design even on the old version of L4, using global IDs for capabilities protected by sparsity (ie, random numbers). I want to at least consider this route so we don't invest any further in a design bound to perish. Thanks, Marcus _______________________________________________ L4-hurd mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/l4-hurd
