At Tue, 14 Feb 2006 23:01:41 +0600, Ivan Shmakov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The third side of the problem is that there might be a need to > pass not only a specific interface, but the specific > implementation to the POSIX program. I'm not sure in using the > term right, but it seems that the ``capability'' passed from one > HURD process to the other could be implemented to posses a > ``default view'', which the originating process could explicitly > set. Thus, the problem is in allowing POSIX programs to use the > capabilities passed to them.
That's the poly class idea. > Similar problem exists in passing the file descriptor from the > parent process to the child. That's no problem if it's a > standard descriptor -- 0, 1 or 2 (stdin, stdout, stderr), but > the programs commonly used aren't able to interpret any other > descriptor they get. That's how it's solved by Bash on > GNU/Linux system: > > $ cat <(echo hello,) <(echo world\!) > hello, > world! > $ Nice. > Would the implemented ``capabilities namespace'' be global, the > following will also be possible, given the <(...) construct be > implemented using the capabilities as well: > > $ emacsclient <(echo hello,\ world\!) No, it wouldn't, as bash would still create a pipe for this, and emacs can't edit a pipe, presumably because it needs random access to the file. Thanks, Marcus _______________________________________________ L4-hurd mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/l4-hurd
