On Thu, 2006-05-18 at 19:17 +0200, Pierre THIERRY wrote: > Scribit Bas Wijnen dies 18/05/2006 hora 14:29: > > However, I don't see how any other definition could make sense. You > > say the parent is the one which provides the storage. Why not the one > > which provides the CPU time? Or any other resource? > > That's a misunderstanding, sorry. I say the parent is the one which > provides all base resources, like storage and scheduling.
I suggest that we should avoid the term "parent", because it seems to have nothing to do with the issue at hand. Rationale: It appears to me that the discussion of transparency is not tied to parent/child relationships. It is instead tied to resource relationships. For example: A has a space bank. A gives it to B in opaque form (which B agrees to accept). B uses it to create C. A can now inspect C, because A has transparent access to the resource. A is not the parent (or the requester) of C, and may be a peer of B (therefore not a parent). But A can still inspect C. shap _______________________________________________ L4-hurd mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/l4-hurd
