Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

--- research:ambientrefs [2008/07/08 10:51] – updated tvcutsem
+++ research:ambientrefs [2008/09/08 10:26] – * tvcutsem
@@ Line 11: / Line 11: @@
 One may wonder why new referencing abstractions are required for mobile networks. In order to motivate the need for new referencing abstractions at the language level, we list a number of desirable properties of remote references for mobile networks which current remote referencing abstractions do not offer:
-  - **Intesional Naming**: in mobile networks, one does not always know the identity or the exact number of the services one requires. Hence, rather than having to //extensionally// specify the services to bind to, one would like to refer to remote objects //intensionally//, based on the kind of services they provide.
+  - **Intensional Naming**: in mobile networks, one does not always know the identity or the exact number of the services one requires. Hence, rather than having to //extensionally// specify the services to bind to, one would like to refer to remote objects //intensionally//, based on the kind of services they provide.
   - **Resilience to Partial Failure**: remote references for mobile networks should be able to tolerate network disconnections because transient network partitions are more commonplace in these types of networks.
   - **Roaming**: remote references in mobile networks should bind to (point to) objects based on what services that object provides, rather than based on a low-level UID, object-id, IP address or MAC address. Such low-level IDs preclude the reference from reconfiguring itself by rebinding to a different object providing the same or equally matching services. In other words, we want object references for MANETs to integrally support roaming by being able to opportunistically bind to whatever proximate matching service is available, regardless of its identity.