Hi, You made strong arguments against "death notifications" for reply capabilities. Nevertheless you also said:
At Fri, 21 Apr 2006 20:16:40 -0400, "Jonathan S. Shapiro" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > In EROS, this behavior [resume capabilities] was dropped, and in my > opinion that was a mistake. [...] > > 1) Is RPC robustness desirable/required, or is an alternative model > > feasible where machine-local RPC is as unreliable as IP/UDP network > > communication? > > Yes, it is important. I would like to know why you think omitting this behaviour was dropped, and why you think that it is important to have at least that behaviour. There must be a better argument than "it was enough for KeyKOS". We don't know KeyKOS very well (and I suspect that our collective knowledge about AS/400 is also slim), so it would be nice if you could explain what the actual problems where that the resume capability behaviour solved, and what convinced you that omitting it was a mistake in EROS. Right now I am confused, because it seems to me that most of the arguments against "send-once" notifications apply equally well to "send on destroy" notifications, and it also seems to me that if one can build a system without "send-once" death notifications, one should equally well be able to build a system without "send on destroy" death notifications (ie EROS). But apparently you think that is not the case. I also hope that a more elaborate explanation will help me to understand better why stronger guarantees where not deemed required in KeyKOS, and if the same reasons apply to the Hurd. Thanks, Marcus _______________________________________________ L4-hurd mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/l4-hurd
