Re: VatTP and Waterken protocols compared
"Marc Stiegler" <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.lang.e.general |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Alas, the current thinking is, we don't know. There are reasons for expecting non-orthogonal persistence to be easier, because you are starting from a minimum amount of state to do the reconstruction. But the jury is still out. Non-orthogonal persistence in E is such a pain before you ever even get to the upgrade problem, it is clear that it too needs more and better tools and insights, just as the waterken persistence does. --marcs On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 10:13 AM, Raoul Duke <[email protected]> wrote: > > The jury is still out on harder scenarios. The only thing for certain is, > we > > will need better tools for harder upgrades. The question is, can tools > good > > enough be made at all? > > what is the current thinking of which theory is appropriate for > modeling upgrade? > _______________________________________________ > e-lang mailing list > [email protected] > http://www.eros-os.org/mailman/listinfo/e-lang > _______________________________________________ e-lang mailing list [email protected] http://www.eros-os.org/mailman/listinfo/e-lang