[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: (now completed) Slides from my talk at CPA2000

"Campbell, John" wrote:

> 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?

Is it helpful to point out that sending a channel down a channel might
mean something different from sending another object down a channel. A
channel is an extended object with two ends forming relationships between
other objects. So in effect you send an *endpoint* along a channel, not a
whole channel itself.

Maybe this distinction is too subtle to be important, but I think I found
it easier to think about it that way.

> Hope everyone finds this discussion as stimulating as I do. -jc

Yep. keep it rolling!

tel;pager:ICQ: 56840977
tel;cell:MSN/Hotmail: richardbeton@xxxxxxxxxxx
tel;fax:01794 833434
tel;work:01794 833458
org:Roke Manor Research Limited;Internet Technology & Networks
adr:;;Roke Manor: http://www.roke.co.uk/;;;SO51 0ZN;UK
title:Internet Consultant
note;quoted-printable:The information contained in this e-mail is confidential and must =0D=0Anot be passed to any third party without permission. This =0D=0Acommunication is for information only and shall not create =0D=0Aor change any contractual relationship. =0D=0A
fn:Rick Beton