[Someone please supply a link/text describing the exact form of this conundrum, which I will happily replace this text with.]
Mark Miller’s Relative Routing talk is probably the best one on this. In reality all netlayers in OCapN can be thought of as a routing concern.
The inverse of routing is confinement, but beware that prohibiting delegation tends to be an illusion.
I’m not sure whether confinement and prohibiting delegation are the same thing or not, but I do know that when I think of one I end up thinking about the other.
?
(Btw, this website insists that replies be at least 20 characters 
)
1 Like
Consider your relative routing talk. The talk tries to be very “eager” about getting a message somewhere… as networked as possible, and let’s try to see who can help try to get the message there!
What’s the opposite of that? Confinement is trying to keep messages from leaking out (or in), really to contain some process. (Emphasis on “trying to”, we know how hard this is to do.)
If you think that’s wrong I’d love to hear why!
I can see the line of reasoning, but it isn’t triggering any useful intuitions in me. If you can put your finger on it, what do you get out of this anti-analogy?