At 14:38 09-04-2002 -0400, Brian Lloyd wrote:
As in Unix, a hard link has different semantics from a soft link. I'm thinking of the "hard link" semantics.
Comparing it to Unix hard links is fine, but Unix doesn't use Acquisition to handle security, so the comparison is not apples-to-apples :)
No its not, agreed. But actually, when you create a hard link to an executable file and from within that executable request the path, you'll get different paths. Crappy way of doing security, but there's lots of people doing it :-) I guess you could call that acquisition :-)
Security in particular is very concerned with *containment* path (rather than just acquisition path) in order to prevent "stealing" access through acquisition wrappers. Having objects with more than one "place" may introduce much the same problem, so we'll need to write up in detail the effects on the security machinery or its application to domain objects (or if the security machinery does not need to change, we need to spell out why).
I wouldnt mind doing this, but I think its out of my league.... C U! -- MV