On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 8:12 PM, Igor Stasenko <siguctua at gmail.com> wrote:

> 2008/7/7 Jason Johnson <jason.johnson.081 at gmail.com>:
> > On Sun, Jul 6, 2008 at 8:40 PM, Igor Stasenko <siguctua at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> okay, let me rephrase it: trusted user and untrusted user.
> >> Do you still against distinction?
> >
> > In the programming language: yes.  It is up to the developer to know
> > the access needs of his software (e.g. are there parts that need to be
> > protected?) and write it accordingly.
> >
> > The only way you need it in the language itself is if you are allowing
> > arbitrary clients to inject code into your running system, which I'm
> > against.  In that case I think it's better to just expose APIs to
> > clients that they can call which you prove to be safe (like web
> > services).
> >
>
> Smalltalk is quite indifferent for these purposes, so i don't see any
> problem using same approach at any level.
> It is not in 'language itself' , i don't think that Gulik need to
> change the language to make things more secure.
> It's not a Java, after all, where by typing word 'private', or 'final'
> you getting false feeling of safety :)
>


Actually, I will need to change the language a bit. I'll need to add
"private" methods and possible other Java-like features . I hope to do this
without any changes to the language syntax.

Gulik.

-- 
http://people.squeakfoundation.org/person/mikevdg
http://gulik.pbwiki.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/attachments/20080708/72847bab/attachment.htm