Re: Program instantiation (was: Re: Translucent storage: design, pros, and cons

At Mon, 15 Jan 2007 14:21:53 -0500,
Jonathan S. Shapiro wrote:
> 
> On Mon, 2007-01-15 at 20:16 +0100, Neal H. Walfield wrote:
> > At Mon, 15 Jan 2007 14:10:26 -0500,
> > Jonathan S. Shapiro wrote:
> > > 
> > > On Mon, 2007-01-15 at 18:48 +0100, Neal H. Walfield wrote:
> > > > > (1) is infeasible in a system where the instantiating party does not
> > > > > have access to the capabilities that the program will require. One
> > > > > purpose of the constructor mechanism is to allow (e.g.) an instantiated
> > > > > password agent to have access to the password database when I do not.
> > > > 
> > > > ... and likely should not have.  Yet, if the yield is running our of
> > > > client provided transparent storage, the client effectively has access
> > > > to the database.  So, don't you want these types of services to run as
> > > > daemons?
> > > 
> > > Absolutely not. I want to be able to safely polyinstantiate them, which
> > > is why I need client-provided storage to be opaque.
> > 
> > But we are not talking about Coyotos; this thread is about HurdNG and
> > you contended that HurdNG should retain constructors.  As such, you
> > must argue within that framework.
> 
> No. This is a discussion of whether the HurdNG design is desirable. As
> such, it is "fair game" for me to identify things I want to do that
> HurdNG precludes.

This thread could be about that.  But it wasn't when it started and
the shift was far from clear.