Weak references and destructors

David-Sarah Hopwood david-sarah at jacaranda.org
Thu Dec 10 23:02:27 PST 2009


Brendan Eich wrote:
> On Dec 10, 2009, at 10:17 PM, Mark S. Miller wrote:
> 
>> I think I'd be willing to weaken this from "eventual notification" to
>> "optional eventual notification." But I do not yet understand this
>> issue. How does a guarantee of eventual notification lead to any more
>> vulnerability to denial of service than "while(true){}" ?
> 
> There is no guarantee of eventual notification, any more than there's a
> guarantee that an armed timeout will fire (navigation away cancels), or
> that an iloop can take forever. If there's no guarantee, then the spec
> should not say there is.

Ah. When I hear MarkM say "eventual", I assume its meaning from E, which
does not actually guarantee that the event eventually happens (because
the destination vat may be destroyed, or the message may not reach it).

This is probably a defect in E terminology that we shouldn't reproduce.

OTOH, the notification shouldn't be arbitrarily cancelled in situations
where events set using setTimeout wouldn't normally be cancelled.

-- 
David-Sarah Hopwood  ⚥  http://davidsarah.livejournal.com

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 292 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/attachments/20091211/9ea79468/attachment.bin>


More information about the es-discuss mailing list