At Wed, 08 Feb 2006 20:42:01 +0100, Tom Bachmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Marcus Brinkmann wrote: > > At Tue, 07 Feb 2006 15:21:15 +0100, > > Tom Bachmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >>like a directory? Or how could even new apps exchange file names without > >>abiguity? > > > > > > - Doctor, it hurts if I do this. > > - Then don't do it. > > > > New applications are better off exchanging capabilities to files > > rather than file names for access to files. > > > > Clearly. I explicitely stated "file names" to point the problem out.
But new apps are not limited to file names. The problem here is that you arbitrarily limit the problem space to exclude the right solutions :) > Still it might be possible to completely avoid exchanging names other > than caps, but if the user is involved this at least requires a way to > name a capability by a string. Anyway, this is offtopic. Ok. So the new problem is exchanging capabilities using a persistent directory hierarchy and string data. This is actually a much more reasonably restriction than just a file name. Two possibilities: 1) The application creates a new name for the specific object (facet) it wants to bind, and passes a string to that. 2) If no new name shall be created, the application can pass two strings: name + desired facet. Then the receiving application can use the poly class members to get the desired facet of the object accessed using the name, These solutions are not equivalent, and which is preferrable depends on other boundary conditions of the problem situation. Btw, I don't think this is off-topic at all. But it would be useful to more carefully motivate hypothetical restricted situations, so that we can see what alternatives may exist. Thanks, Marcus _______________________________________________ L4-hurd mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/l4-hurd
