Persistence and Transactions
David.Ungar at Eng.Sun.COM
Tue Sep 1 20:33:48 UTC 1992
If you have a chance I would love to hear more about
the semantic changes that would be needed.
How many of them could be built within the language as new objects and control
> In addition, I have been considering using SELF as the main programming
> language for a transactional based persistent distributed object store which I
> have been working on for some time. SELF appears to offer an efficient
> type of language which makes its choice as a standard language attractive.
> However, its lack of key features, such as transaction control, locking,
> distribution, and persistence, means that I will have to fudge the language
> semantics. Mind you, considering the complexity of SELF, the first version
> of this is liable to be a cut-down version of the language (microSELF?).
> Maybe I could use uPSELF (persistent)? In fact, I will go and write that one
> down :-).
> I have to agree that the other languages I have looked at (C/C++, Ada, etc)
> would require similar semantic distortions to allow programming of my
> store, but SELF has the advantage of being clean, new, and object-oriented
> (truelly). Tasking would be nice though....
More information about the Self-interest