KER, obj (was Re: KER, win)

[Michael David WINIKOFF]

> 
> > Hi! 
> > I've knocked up a sketch for a simple kernel.
> > I've currently left out virtual memory and object support simply 
> > because virtual memory seems to be dependant on how we do objects and
> > we haven't reached a consensus (or even an understanding yet!) on objects.
> 
> Great - we'll be looking forward to seeing that!
> 
> Q: Why is virtual memory considered dependant on how we do objects?  Maybe I
>    missed that discussion...

Something Fare' said about objects being small and this conflicting with 
the page as the smallest unit of VM/protection.

I'm not quite certain so I'm playing it safe.

> 
> The structure of an object needs to be clearly defined by the kernel: how it
> stores the attributes (data) associated with an object, how polymorphism
> affects the virtual method tables (VMT) of an object, especially in the case
> of multiple inheritance, and so on.  Also, this definition of an object needs
> to be useful to all languages...this is a tall order to fill!
> 

I still feel uncomfortable about defining such features as polymorphism 
at a level where they will be so hard to change -- surely there is no one
universally used model of objects/polymorphism etc. ...



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Winikoff
winikoff@cs.mu.oz.au
Computer science honours. University of Melbourne, Australia.