[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Capability IDL

From: Neal H. Walfield
Subject: Re: Capability IDL
Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2005 22:38:34 +0100
User-agent: Wanderlust/2.14.0 (Africa) SEMI/1.14.6 (Maruoka) FLIM/1.14.6 (Marutamachi) APEL/10.6 Emacs/21.4 (i386-pc-linux-gnu) MULE/5.0 (SAKAKI)

At Thu, 29 Sep 2005 12:36:07 -0400,
Jonathan S. Shapiro wrote:
> Marcus and Neal and I have been talking, which prompts me to ask a
> question about Hurd IDL -- or more precisely, it prompts me to want to
> learn how what the Hurd group has done may be different from what EROS
> and Coyotos have done.

My opinion has been that we should ignore the issue until we are ready
to thoroughly deal with it.  This is based on a number of observations
from the Hurd on Mach including: 1) there are a small number of
interfaces; 2) interfaces, once decided upon, rarely change; and 3)
writing stub code is quick and relatively easy.  Moreover, with an API
like L4 X.2, the stub code is even portable across architectures.


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]