[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: (now completed) Slides from my talk at CPA2000
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Campbell, John [mailto:John.Campbell@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> > Sent: 05 December 2000 17:44
> > To: 'Tom Locke'; occam-com@xxxxxxxxx; java-threads@xxxxxxxxx
> > Subject: RE: (now completed) Slides from my talk at CPA2000
> > Tom and Others
> > > >The problem is that it's not much of an object if you have to sever
> > > >its existing channel connections before sending it.
> > >
> > > Could you elaborate on this?
> > What I'm struggling to understand is how you avoid the problems
> > attendant to aliasing if you transport an object with open
> > connections. It seems to me that even if you manage to avoid
> > aliasing of the *object* you're going to get it on the open
> > *channels*.
> David May did some work on mobile processes which he presented at WoTUG-21.
> I asked someone at Bristol for a copy of the relevant papers (an occam-like
> langage called Icarus), but never heard anything more. It was pretty
> interesting stuff though, worth looking at for this case.
It is on Henk Muller's pages, I think. Try also
and there is
"Using Channels for Multimedia Communication." with a note saying that
if you want a copy, you should email David (David.May@xxxxxxxxxxxxx).
"A Simple Protocol to Communicate Channels over Channels." and
"Icarus language definition."
> > I'm supposing that when you move the channel object (as opposed
> > to a conventional OO object) out of its original context, the
> > original context cannot communicate with it. That's what I meant
> > by "sever its connections". Is there a way to limit access to
> > a sent object such that you don't get aliasing, but it can
> > still interact with its original environment?
I think that you can get around any aliasing problems by using the same
methods that I used in dealing with mobile variables. I can't remember
how David and Henk managed that. Maybe Henk is listening and will remind
Dr A E Lawrence