Re: E patches for review: ELoader

I've committed this now. I also added persistenceSealer to safeScope, as
suggested in
http://www.eros-os.org/pipermail/e-lang/2009-September/013279.html

I'll update the documentation on the wiki once a version with this in
has been released.


On Wed, 2010-06-02 at 12:37 +0100, Thomas Leonard wrote:
> Here are some cleaned-up patches for adding ELoader. There are four in 
> the series (on my "proposed" branch):
> 
> http://gitorious.org/~tal-itinnov/repo-roscidus/it-innovation/commits/proposed
> 
> 
> They are:
> 
> "Added <elang:interp.ELoaderAuthor>"
> http://gitorious.org/~tal-itinnov/repo-roscidus/it-innovation/commit/1c03d05489a596a474bd87d3ccdb6deee7819714
> 
> "Added seedVat/3 to give envExtras to the new vat"
> http://gitorious.org/~tal-itinnov/repo-roscidus/it-innovation/commit/fcfa012324148163edc33f7a34a6de0f64d74d66
> 
> "When running (unconfined) code with rune, give it a <this> loader by
> default"
> http://gitorious.org/~tal-itinnov/repo-roscidus/it-innovation/commit/6e8e15eaf64d423d749bf66ce37533ec44e50854
> 
> "Set <this> loader when running updoc scripts"
> http://gitorious.org/~tal-itinnov/repo-roscidus/it-innovation/commit/2f18c1519028a755f0fe6c1349ae914961ff2066
> 
> 
> I agree with Kevin that a full module system needs more than this. In
> particular, the ability to have public and private APIs for modules.
> However, I think this would build on these patches rather than replace
> them.
> 
> The code above never connects modules together itself; it just gives a
> single <this> loader to .e and .updoc scripts. Programs wanting to use
> multiple modules (e.g. my prototype) make a loader for each module and
> connect them themselves. They can choose whether to give a module its
> dependency's <this> loader directly, or some restricted facet of it.
> 
> 
> Note: seedVat is still using the persistence sealer to transfer the
> loader configuration between vats. This isn't a security issue because
> seedVat already gives the caller <unsafe> in the new vat. I'm not sure
> there's much advantage to using a different sealer; I think it would
> just make it less likely that existing objects can be copied
> successfully. It's up to the programmer not to copy an object that
> shouldn't have two instances at once, just as they shouldn't revive two
> vats from a single state file. I don't feel strongly about it either
> way, though.
> 
> 
> 

-- 
Dr Thomas Leonard
IT Innovation Centre
2 Venture Road
Southampton
Hampshire SO16 7NP

Tel: +44 0 23 8076 0834
Fax: +44 0 23 8076 0833
mailto:tal-v5nx5w6akNyLE8xUarVfuPLx9OUvmyODWmv/[email protected]
http://www.it-innovation.soton.ac.uk