just curious

[Matthew Dillon]

:Hi Matt,
:
:
:I Hope the project works out. It's ambitious but it
:sounds promising!
:
:Do you plan to work toward something like a
:microkernel-ish system? Some statements on the site
:seem to implicate this.
:
:E.

    Well, the traditional definition of a microkernel has a lot of negative
    connotations, which I blame on Mach.  DragonFly is definitely not going
    to be a traditional microkernel but it will retain many of the better
    qualities of a microkernel design.

    For example, DragonFly will use messaging heavily but the messaging will
    be a light-weight design that is, by itself, incapable of transiting a
    protection boundary.  The core messaging structures will not track 
    pointers or message sizes, for example.  Instead what we will do is
    support the transiting of protection boundaries by creating port
    abstractions which do the appropriate translation into and out of forms
    that *can* cross a protection boundary.

    In otherwords, we will be able to use messaging to be able to abstract
    certain devices and VFS layers into userland, which is tradtionally 
    considered to be 'microkernel design', but that abstraction is not going
    to hogtie in-kernel implementations with overhead bloat nor are we going
    to require protection separation for the majority of devices in what
    would be considered a 'production' system.
   
					-Matt
					Matthew Dillon 
					<dillon at xxxxxxxxxxxxx>