On notification proxies

Tom Van Cutsem tomvc.be at gmail.com
Wed Mar 6 23:29:53 PST 2013


2013/3/5 David Bruant <bruant.d at gmail.com>

> In cases where it'd be acceptable to share prototypes (because they'd be
> frozen and hold no powerful reference, for instance), one can wonder if 1)
> is that cheaper than the invariants notification proxies are meant to
> remove (add+remove prop and enter/exit 2 function calls)


The way I look at Notification Proxies, their benefit is not so much in
getting rid of the *runtime* cost of checking the invariants, the more
important virtue is that they get rid of the *complexity* cost of
specifying the invariants (and the associated risk of forgetting to check a
crucial invariant).

On a related note, Mark and I just had a paper accepted on the design
principles behind direct proxies:
http://soft.vub.ac.be/Publications/2013/vub-soft-tr-13-03.pdf

The paper explains the "shadow target" pattern needed for membranes
in-depth (Section 4.3). As Sam mentioned previously, notification proxies
don't get rid of this pattern (in fact they may need to make use of it
more).

Cheers,
Tom
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/attachments/20130307/a475482c/attachment.html>


More information about the es-discuss mailing list