PLEASE READ THIS ONE

[Michael David WINIKOFF]

Hi people -- just replying to a number of mails.

We've been having a lot of argument recently about various details.

The reason, I think, is that we don't have a common conceptual image of
what the system should end up being.

Different people's proposals suggest different systems -- everything from 
an OO based application sharing layer sitting above a conventional hardware
abstractor through a small single user Unix to a distributed multi user 
system.

Can we drop detailed issues and talk about conceptual models for the moment?

I'd like everyone to stop and think about what type of system they'd invisage
MOOSE as -- how would you summarise it's ESSENCE?

Then try to explain your view to everyone else.

I think if we can compromise on a common view we'll be half way to desining
the system.
(Ok, third of the way. ... would you believe a quarter? :-)

I'd particularly like Dennis (who has been rather quiet lately) to try
and get across his conceptual model.

To start the ball rolling here's mine ... I would like to emphasize that
mine is a kinda vague defaulty thing -- I'm quite open to suggestions 
and other viewpoints ...

What I had in mind was a system where executable code is the standard
however you'd have kernel calls to send messages to other processes/objects

Internally an object is a piece of code with no constraints. 
It (the object) gets called from other objects.

We have more flexibility then (EG) MS-DOS since an object has multiple entry 
points as opposed to a single "run -- exit" sequence.

We provide inter-application communication by having standard object 
sementics -- much like device independant I/O allows us to write programs
that will work on both files, terminals, pipes etc.
Call this polymorphism if you will.

The fundumentals are
	* Multitasking (otherwise you can't have inter-application 
			communication)
	* mountable devices
	* Remote Object Invocation (or whatever you want to call it)

Michael