Subscribe: Comments on: careful what you wish for
http://shaver.off.net/diary/2004/07/19/careful-what-you-wish-for/feed/
Added By: Feedage Forager Feedage Grade B rated
Language: English
Tags:
beltzner  didn  enables  end  hoye town  hoye  mechanism policy  mechanism  mike hoye  mike  much  people don  people  policy  town equipped 
Rate this Feed
Rate this feedRate this feedRate this feedRate this feedRate this feed
Rate this feed 1 starRate this feed 2 starRate this feed 3 starRate this feed 4 starRate this feed 5 star

Comments (0)

Feed Details and Statistics Feed Statistics
Preview: Comments on: careful what you wish for

Comments on: careful what you wish for



noise from signal



Last Build Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2011 07:05:56 +0000

 



By: Mike Hoye

Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

It seems to me that generally speaking, mechanism circumscribes policy as much as it enables it. It's not a question of "do we divorce the two or not", but "how much flexibility of policy do we want in our mechanism to permit/enable." If you're going to say "We want pure mechanism that enables every possible policy", you're going to end up with a swiss army knife as wide as a desk, with all the attendant usability. With X, basically.

I'm always a little concerned when I hear people say "foo will provide mechanism, not policy". That seems like one of Nature's warning signs, like bright colors on a caterpillar or a spoiler on a chevette, and demarks those people who don't understand the relationship between the two or, as you say, the inherent risks of either extreme.




By: Mike Hoye

Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

Oh, and P.S: you're going to be in town, and I know that you're equipped with a mechanism for ingesting liberal quantities of alcohol. And that's why you need to drop me a line about your availability, so that we can form some policy and then implement the hell out of it.




By: Daniel Barlow

Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

"Mechanism not policy" so often doesn't even mean that; it's just a code phrase for "we deferred the difficult decisions". So instead of a policy that was actually, like, designed, you get a de facto policy consisting more or less of whatever happened to be the defaults for the stuff they didn't think of.

Where is the X mechanism that will support my preferred policy of "not killing the entire process when the network to one of the X servers goes away"? There is none. Because it didn't occur to whoever wrote Xlib that people might want multiple connections, we have the unintentional policy that apps can't reliably open more than one server.

OK, I'm ranting.




By: beltzner

Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

If I'm following this conversation correctly, then I think it should be pointed out that quite often, the people who are using the mechanisms to impliment those very arbitrary policies end up doing wonderful things: see Mono.

Merci, et salut la visite.




By: beltzner

Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

Hrm. You know, now that I think I've a better idea of the context, I'm not so sure my point makes sense.