Path: utzoo!mnetor!tmsoft!torsqnt!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!agate!stew.ssl.berkeley.edu!johnf
From: johnf@stew.ssl.berkeley.edu (John Flanagan)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.tech
Subject: Re: Amiga Resource tracking & Protection.
Message-ID: <1990Mar6.181944.22600@agate.berkeley.edu>
Date: 6 Mar 90 18:19:44 GMT
References: <208.25f3c82b@waikato.ac.nz> <10013@cbmvax.commodore.com>
Sender: usenet@agate.berkeley.edu (USENET Administrator;;;;ZU44)
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
Lines: 22

In article <10013@cbmvax.commodore.com> valentin@cbmvax (Valentin Pepelea) writes:
>Now let me rehash something clearly:
>
>1. Memory protection can only be implemented by redefining the MEMF_PUBLIC
>   flag.
>2. Then it would be trivial to implement memory protection, but *all*
>   applications would then crash and have to be revised. Even the shared
>   libraries on the workbench disk would have to be revised.
>
>If you guys want to give Commodore the mandate to go ahead and drop backwards
>compatibility completely for the sake of memory protection, then go ahead and
>say so, but keep in mind that the above two points are the Gospell truth.

Here's my vote for the mandate.
Document the changes needed in 1.4, and implement them in 1.5 (or 2.0).



John Flanagan				Space Sciences Laboratory
johnf@ssl.berkeley.edu			University of California
(...!ucbvax!soc1.ssl!johnf)		Berkeley, CA 94720
Manners Maketh Man.			(415) 643-6308