[DGD] nomask and static vs straight

[Shentino]

In particular, some of these qualify as intrinsic "applies", such as the
destruct() lfun.

Closest analogy is klib's create() function.

On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 7:00 AM, Shentino <shentino at gmail.com> wrote:

>
>
> On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 6:49 AM, Felix A. Croes <felix at dworkin.nl> wrote:
>
>> Shentino <shentino at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >[...]
>> > What I'm curious about is who should bear the burden of access control.
>> >  With a nomask and a stack, my role inheritable guarantees that a simple
>> > static function supplied by the inheritor will suffice, whereas if I
>> just do
>> > a straiht call, the inheritor has to bear the burden of allowing the
>> > appropriate caller, and yet turn away from everyone else.
>> >
>> > Any reason I should do one over the other?
>>
>> It could be a matter of responsibility and security.  The _F_hook setup
>> may protect the consistency of data that cannot be accessed directly by
>> the inheritor, or that could even be messed up by a maliciously-written
>> inheritor.
>>
>> When the responsibility lies with the inheritor, let the inheritor do
>> the checking.
>>
> Then I guess it would be do direct and let the inheritor worry about
> security.  None of my cases involve data, rather, the daemons are calling
> _F_hook so that the hook() defined by the inheritor can enjoy the benefits
> of static declaration.
>
>> Regards,
>> Felix Croes
>> ___________________________________________
>> https://mail.dworkin.nl/mailman/listinfo/dgd
>>
>
>