Re: Newbie questions about persistence (Attn MarkM: Possible surprise-vulnerability in persistence protocol)

On Thu, Sep 24, 2009 at 9:20 AM, Kevin Reid <[email protected]> wrote:

[out of order]
>> I named the class PersistentSealer (rather than PersistenceSealer) to
>> match PersistentKeyHolder.
>
> I haven't liked the name of PersistentKeyHolder. It's not a holder of
> persistent keys, and so on. I'd rather see a consistent renaming to
> 'Persistence'. MarkM?

Yes, 'Persistence'.

> This is unnecessary complexity. Just have ScopeSetup put the sealer in
> the safeScope. Though I'm not sure what the name of the object should
> be. MarkM?

'PersistenceSealer'?


>> The seal function takes an extra "self" parameter, currently
>> ignored, in
>> anticipation of Kevin's changes to the persistence protocol.
>
>
> This doesn't feel appropriate to me; I can't quite say what the
> problem with it is though. It feels like something that ought to be
> 'utility' not 'primitive', in particular that the unrestricted sealing
> authority should be available. but I can't quite justify that.
>
> If nothing else, we should wait to invent such things until MarkM has
> finished chewing on the problem:
>   <http://www.eros-os.org/pipermail/e-lang/2009-September/013261.html>
>
> I also don't like that you're using a StaticMaker to be the sealer
> object, but I don't have a justification for that either.

Please don't wait for me. I'm not sure when I'll have the bandwidth again.


-- 
Text by me above is hereby placed in the public domain

    Cheers,
    --MarkM