Meikel Brandmeyer wrote: > On May 31, 3:15 pm, "Sina K. Heshmati" <s...@khakbaz.com> wrote: > >> True but my main concern is security of a running application. >> It could very well be that B is just a bunch of interactions, >> in which case B can enter A's namespace. > > ??? I'm not sure I understand. How can B "enter" the namespace > of A? If you mean you have a Repl and someone arbitrary can > enter commands there as she likes... You can always mess up > everything. > >> I still haven't tried to use reflection to see if I can still >> access the state. In case a program can use metaprogramming >> to access private fields of an abstraction, no matter what the >> programmer does, then my concerns are not relevant. > > To be honest: I don't see the problem. You talk about a very > fuzzy "the user might do something". Do you have a particular > scenario in mind?
You're right. It's rather a contract problem as you said than a security concern because no matter what we do, people can use reflection to mess things up anyway. I'm likely to drop the whole idea of encapsulating the state in a closure and rely on private annotations. Thanks Meikel for bearing with me :) >> Problem solved. > > Just some minor remarks: you can move the extend outside the > let and the declare is not necessary. defprotocol will take > care of that for you. Nice. That's much better. I'd like to thank Meikel, Krukow, and Adrian for participating in this discussion. Kind regards, SinDoc -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your first post. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en
