On Sat, Feb 09, 2008 at 01:02:15AM +0000, Lalo Martins wrote: > Yet, you didn't address my actual point ;-) > > I know what site IDs are supposed to be for. My question is -- do we > really want libraries to "ship" as a separate site each? I realise the > key space is pretty large, so "polluting" it is probably no big deal, but > I see no big advantage in this case. (You would need to ship the private > key, anyway, right?)
In VOS terms, a "Library" is a set of interfaces, not concrete classes. This is why the "Implementation" objects are separate from the Class objects. This idea needs to be developed more, though, since even within the VOS type system itself I have found it useful to have both abstract classes (that cannot be instantiated ever, interface only) and concrete classes. With regard to shipping the private key, my thinking is that publishing an API is like specifying a protocol, and that you really want a way of unambigiously referring to a specific API as published by a specific entity at a specific version. If you let everybody have the private key then you cannot guarantee that, because anyone could produce a signed API document. One of the foundation concepts in s5 is that ownership of a private key implies the ability (and responsibility) to coordinate changes to that site so that you don't have conflicting replicas floating around from different sources. -- [ Peter Amstutz ][ [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [Lead Programmer][Interreality Project][Virtual Reality for the Internet] [ VOS: Next Generation Internet Communication][ http://interreality.org ] [ http://interreality.org/~tetron ][ pgpkey: pgpkeys.mit.edu 18C21DF7 ]
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ vos-d mailing list vos-d@interreality.org http://www.interreality.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/vos-d
