headers
David Hopwood | 7 Aug 2007 18:02
Picon

Re: What's a SturdyRef (or TraversalKey, String, ...), anyway?

Kevin Reid wrote:
> Selfish objects: those whose identity identity is defined by their  
> unique event of creation.
> 
> Selfless objects: those whose identity is determined by their  
> components, traversed via __optUncall.
> 
> The above definitions are well-established (I think), but not  
> complete. There is a class of objects whose identity is not unique to  
> their creation, and do not reveal their components:
> 
>    * SturdyRef
>    * TraversalKey
>    * boxed numbers
>    * String
>    * Proxy

I thought that such objects should be considered Selfless but not
Transparent?

(see Figure 3 of <http://www.erights.org/elang/kernel/auditors/>)

[...]
> Questions:
> 
>    * What should this third category be called? (I'll use "Atomic"  
> for purposes of the next question.)

"Do not reveal [all of] their components" is absence of an auditable
property. So I am not sure that this category needs a specific name.
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply |
headers
Kevin Reid | 7 Aug 2007 19:35
Picon
Gravatar

Re: What's a SturdyRef (or TraversalKey, String, ...), anyway?

On Aug 7, 2007, at 12:02, David Hopwood wrote:
> I thought that such objects should be considered Selfless but not
> Transparent?
>
> (see Figure 3 of <http://www.erights.org/elang/kernel/auditors/>)
> ...
> "Do not reveal [all of] their components" is absence of an  
> auditable property. So I am not sure that this category needs a  
> specific name. Why is "Selfless && !Transparent" not sufficient?

I'm starting to think that this may be the right answer; especially  
as I've thought of two categories of S&!T objects:

   - those compared in some primitive way (e.g. integers).
   - those compared, like S&T, by an uncall (portrayal), but not one  
revealed to all clients.

I accept that we shouldn't have a specific name for S&!T, and that  
the objects I was asking about are S&!T.

Given this, the stamp (not yet true auditor) I'm calling  
SelflessStamp in E-on-CL must be renamed, as it really means  
SelflessTransparentStamp.

I imagine splitting it into TransparentStamp and Selfless. Selfless  
auditing would consist of verifying that the object provides some  
reliable comparison; TransparentStamp being one of them.

(Auditing for transparency is nontrivial, as it not only involves the  
object's definition, but also its maker, which must be shown to
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply |
headers
David Hopwood | 8 Aug 2007 23:35
Picon

Re: What's a SturdyRef (or TraversalKey, String, ...), anyway?

Kevin Reid wrote:
> On Aug 7, 2007, at 12:02, David Hopwood wrote:
>> I thought that such objects should be considered Selfless but not
>> Transparent?
>>
>> (see Figure 3 of <http://www.erights.org/elang/kernel/auditors/>)
>> ...
>> "Do not reveal [all of] their components" is absence of an  
>> auditable property. So I am not sure that this category needs a  
>> specific name. Why is "Selfless && !Transparent" not sufficient?
> 
> I'm starting to think that this may be the right answer; especially  
> as I've thought of two categories of S&!T objects:
> 
>    - those compared in some primitive way (e.g. integers).

These should be considered Transparent. Otherwise, objects with
primitive fields cannot be DeepTransparent (if DeepTransparent just
means 'transitively Transparent').

>    - those compared, like S&T, by an uncall (portrayal), but not one  
> revealed to all clients.

These are called "selectively transparent" in
<http://www.erights.org/javadoc/org/erights/e/elib/prim/MirandaMethods.html#__optUncall(java.lang.Object)>.

> I accept that we shouldn't have a specific name for S&!T, and that  
> the objects I was asking about are S&!T.
> 
> Given this, the stamp (not yet true auditor) I'm calling
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply |
headers
Kevin Reid | 9 Aug 2007 14:38
Picon
Gravatar

Re: What's a SturdyRef (or TraversalKey, String, ...), anyway?

On Aug 8, 2007, at 17:35, David Hopwood wrote:
> Kevin Reid wrote:
>> On Aug 7, 2007, at 12:02, David Hopwood wrote:
>>> I thought that such objects should be considered Selfless but not
>>> Transparent?
>>>
>>> (see Figure 3 of <http://www.erights.org/elang/kernel/auditors/>)
>>> ...
>>> "Do not reveal [all of] their components" is absence of an
>>> auditable property. So I am not sure that this category needs a
>>> specific name. Why is "Selfless && !Transparent" not sufficient?
>>
>> I'm starting to think that this may be the right answer; especially
>> as I've thought of two categories of S&!T objects:
>>
>>    - those compared in some primitive way (e.g. integers).
>
> These should be considered Transparent. Otherwise, objects with
> primitive fields cannot be DeepTransparent (if DeepTransparent just
> means 'transitively Transparent').

I don't like this. I think there is value in having a simple name for  
"those objects which uncall accurately", and little value in having  
DeepTransparent.

>>    - those compared, like S&T, by an uncall (portrayal), but not one
>> revealed to all clients.
>
> These are called "selectively transparent" in
> <http://www.erights.org/javadoc/org/erights/e/elib/prim/
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply |

Gmane