Re: Part 2: System Structure

[Bas Wijnen]

On Mon, May 15, 2006 at 06:15:18PM +0200, Pierre THIERRY wrote:
> If the initial design of the constructor is that the user has no choice
> (which I'm not convinced of), then nothing prevents us to implement it
> in such a way that the user has to give authority to opacify a storage.
> If the user doesn't want opacity, then either the program could be
> started in transparent storage, without anything the user should not see
> (like the high score capability) or the program won't start if it is not
> allowed to be started in this way.

That's what I sketched using the user session.  If you build it into the space
bank, a program could decide that it allows opaque storage for its child.  I
want to avoid that.  Only the user herself should be able to give away the
right to debug.  Or maybe not even the user.  We'll see. :-)

> Naturally. But the user has still the choice. If the program is designed
> to use an opaque storage, of course the user as to give it opaque
> storage to use it. But the user should see a dialog popping that ask if
> he really wants to give that authority ot the program.

If the default is to use opaque storage, then that dialog would be very
annoying (popping up at every single process instantiation), and everyone
(including me) would set it to "yes to all".  That is a situation I want to
avoid.

Thanks,
Bas

-- 
I encourage people to send encrypted e-mail (see http://www.gnupg.org).
If you have problems reading my e-mail, use a better reader.
Please send the central message of e-mails as plain text
   in the message body, not as HTML and definitely not as MS Word.
Please do not use the MS Word format for attachments either.
For more information, see http://129.125.47.90/e-mail.html

signature.asc
Description: Digital signature