Here is the trace: http://minnow.cc.gatech.edu/squeak/3243
It is pipelining messages, but I don't have a proper event-loop, so it
doesn't flush the connection buffers at the end of each vat turn -
instead I flush every 10 ms. Also, the lack of an event loop results
in no partial ordering guarantees. Proof of this is in the trace
showing that the initiating side processes the second resolution before
the first resolution (in the third chunk of messages).
regards,
robert
Hi All,
For a research project at UCL Belgium I am investigating capabilities
to enable secure programming in multi-paradigm languages. The Mozart
implementation of the Oz language will be my main research tool.
I have to decide now whether or not to build a rough emulation of the
E-language mechanisms in Oz first and learn from that, or just go ahead
in Oz, and concentrate on the differences with E.
1. Any advice from the subscribers on this mailinglist, regarding this
decision?
Any particular reasons why you'd choose for the one or the other, or
why you think I should?
2. It is claimed that Promise-based concurrency is important in E for
security. Do you think it's also important for capabilities in any way?
Many thanks,
Fred.
(I posted this mail on both e-lang and squeak-e mailinglists)
_______________________________________
Fred Spiessens
Researcher software security
UCL university
Louvain-la-Neuve Belgium
Email: fsp(a)info.ucl.ac.be
URL: http://www.info.ucl.ac.be/people/fsp/fred.html
