[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Persistance (was: Re: The idea of an own L4)
From: |
olafBuddenhagen |
Subject: |
Persistance (was: Re: The idea of an own L4) |
Date: |
Mon, 10 Oct 2005 05:29:19 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.5.9i |
Hi,
> Also, kernel object management is pretty important to me, if we want
> at least orthogonal persistence.
"At least"?...
Unless I'm missing something very crucial, unless I've completely
misunderstood the way EROS works, I can confidently claim that
orthogonal persistance is something we definitely do *not* want. It
wouldn't help the goals of the Hurd at all. Actually, I'm pretty sure it
would hinder them.
I *do* believe we want some kind of session management (beyond passive
translators) at some point. But I doubt this is something that should be
implemented at kernel level; and I also doubt this is a thing that needs
serious consideration at this stage.
I've written up some of my thoughts on this at
http://tri-ceps.blogspot.com/2005/09/persistance-vs-insistance.html
-antrik-
- Re: The idea of an own L4, (continued)
- Re: The idea of an own L4, Jonathan S. Shapiro, 2005/10/10
- Re: The idea of an own L4, Alfred M. Szmidt, 2005/10/11
- Re: The idea of an own L4, Ludovic Courtès, 2005/10/11
- Re: The idea of an own L4, ams, 2005/10/11
- Re: The idea of an own L4, Jonathan S. Shapiro, 2005/10/11
- Re: The idea of an own L4, Ludovic Courtès, 2005/10/11
Re: The idea of an own L4, Marcus Brinkmann, 2005/10/09
- Persistance (was: Re: The idea of an own L4),
olafBuddenhagen <=
Re: The idea of an own L4, Leonardo Lopes Pereira, 2005/10/10
Re: The idea of an own L4, ness, 2005/10/09