Subject: context

From: "Marc Snir" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Jun 93 16:58:08 EDT

Could you send the updated draft before the weekend?
Do you need help in updating the map/group constructs, according to the
suggestion of Walker?

----- End Included Message -----

Marc, there has been a tremendous amount of discussion about groups, maps,
etc, since last meeting.  Specifically, the following items have come 
up (during a meeting between Mark Sears and me, and with EXTENSIVE comments
from Lyndon)...

maps... concensus is to drop them, returning to groups.
groups... make groups be ordered collections of opaque process names.

We went round and round at Sandia (Mark and I) discussing the maps,
groups, etc, and seeing how everything fits together.  David Walker's
comments spurred this discussion.

We feel that the system is simpler without the relative maps, that is,
groups are easier to explain.  As groups remain opaque, the full power
to retain underlying translation tables is retained.

We have come up with a C1 strategy for creating/sharing communicators.
This is tentatively the publish/subscribe strategy.  

I will most likely update the draft this weekend, and work with context
sub-committee members next Tuesday, before meeting starts.  Can you 
be there a day early?
- Tony