[squeak-dev] Namespaces

Igor Stasenko siguctua at gmail.com
Mon Jul 7 08:12:23 UTC 2008


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 :)

>



-- 
Best regards,
Igor Stasenko AKA sig.



More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list