annotate osx/include/capnp/rpc-twoparty.capnp @ 51:bbebe9a28170

Add Capnp and KJ builds for Win32
author Chris Cannam
date Wed, 26 Oct 2016 13:24:45 +0100
parents 3ab5a40c4e3b
children 0994c39f1e94
rev   line source
cannam@49 1 # Copyright (c) 2013-2014 Sandstorm Development Group, Inc. and contributors
cannam@49 2 # Licensed under the MIT License:
cannam@49 3 #
cannam@49 4 # Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy
cannam@49 5 # of this software and associated documentation files (the "Software"), to deal
cannam@49 6 # in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights
cannam@49 7 # to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell
cannam@49 8 # copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is
cannam@49 9 # furnished to do so, subject to the following conditions:
cannam@49 10 #
cannam@49 11 # The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in
cannam@49 12 # all copies or substantial portions of the Software.
cannam@49 13 #
cannam@49 14 # THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR
cannam@49 15 # IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY,
cannam@49 16 # FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE
cannam@49 17 # AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER
cannam@49 18 # LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM,
cannam@49 19 # OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN
cannam@49 20 # THE SOFTWARE.
cannam@49 21
cannam@49 22 @0xa184c7885cdaf2a1;
cannam@49 23 # This file defines the "network-specific parameters" in rpc.capnp to support a network consisting
cannam@49 24 # of two vats. Each of these vats may in fact be in communication with other vats, but any
cannam@49 25 # capabilities they forward must be proxied. Thus, to each end of the connection, all capabilities
cannam@49 26 # received from the other end appear to live in a single vat.
cannam@49 27 #
cannam@49 28 # Two notable use cases for this model include:
cannam@49 29 # - Regular client-server communications, where a remote client machine (perhaps living on an end
cannam@49 30 # user's personal device) connects to a server. The server may be part of a cluster, and may
cannam@49 31 # call on other servers in the cluster to help service the user's request. It may even obtain
cannam@49 32 # capabilities from these other servers which it passes on to the user. To simplify network
cannam@49 33 # common traversal problems (e.g. if the user is behind a firewall), it is probably desirable to
cannam@49 34 # multiplex all communications between the server cluster and the client over the original
cannam@49 35 # connection rather than form new ones. This connection should use the two-party protocol, as
cannam@49 36 # the client has no interest in knowing about additional servers.
cannam@49 37 # - Applications running in a sandbox. A supervisor process may execute a confined application
cannam@49 38 # such that all of the confined app's communications with the outside world must pass through
cannam@49 39 # the supervisor. In this case, the connection between the confined app and the supervisor might
cannam@49 40 # as well use the two-party protocol, because the confined app is intentionally prevented from
cannam@49 41 # talking to any other vat anyway. Any external resources will be proxied through the supervisor,
cannam@49 42 # and so to the contained app will appear as if they were hosted by the supervisor itself.
cannam@49 43 #
cannam@49 44 # Since there are only two vats in this network, there is never a need for three-way introductions,
cannam@49 45 # so level 3 is free. Moreover, because it is never necessary to form new connections, the
cannam@49 46 # two-party protocol can be used easily anywhere where a two-way byte stream exists, without regard
cannam@49 47 # to where that byte stream goes or how it was initiated. This makes the two-party runtime library
cannam@49 48 # highly reusable.
cannam@49 49 #
cannam@49 50 # Joins (level 4) _could_ be needed in cases where one or both vats are participating in other
cannam@49 51 # networks that use joins. For instance, if Alice and Bob are speaking through the two-party
cannam@49 52 # protocol, and Bob is also participating on another network, Bob may send Alice two or more
cannam@49 53 # proxied capabilities which, unbeknownst to Bob at the time, are in fact pointing at the same
cannam@49 54 # remote object. Alice may then request to join these capabilities, at which point Bob will have
cannam@49 55 # to forward the join to the other network. Note, however, that if Alice is _not_ participating on
cannam@49 56 # any other network, then Alice will never need to _receive_ a Join, because Alice would always
cannam@49 57 # know when two locally-hosted capabilities are the same and would never export a redundant alias
cannam@49 58 # to Bob. So, Alice can respond to all incoming joins with an error, and only needs to implement
cannam@49 59 # outgoing joins if she herself desires to use this feature. Also, outgoing joins are relatively
cannam@49 60 # easy to implement in this scenario.
cannam@49 61 #
cannam@49 62 # What all this means is that a level 4 implementation of the confined network is barely more
cannam@49 63 # complicated than a level 2 implementation. However, such an implementation allows the "client"
cannam@49 64 # or "confined" app to access the server's/supervisor's network with equal functionality to any
cannam@49 65 # native participant. In other words, an application which implements only the two-party protocol
cannam@49 66 # can be paired with a proxy app in order to participate in any network.
cannam@49 67 #
cannam@49 68 # So, when implementing Cap'n Proto in a new language, it makes sense to implement only the
cannam@49 69 # two-party protocol initially, and then pair applications with an appropriate proxy written in
cannam@49 70 # C++, rather than implement other parameterizations of the RPC protocol directly.
cannam@49 71
cannam@49 72 using Cxx = import "/capnp/c++.capnp";
cannam@49 73 $Cxx.namespace("capnp::rpc::twoparty");
cannam@49 74
cannam@49 75 # Note: SturdyRef is not specified here. It is up to the application to define semantics of
cannam@49 76 # SturdyRefs if desired.
cannam@49 77
cannam@49 78 enum Side {
cannam@49 79 server @0;
cannam@49 80 # The object lives on the "server" or "supervisor" end of the connection. Only the
cannam@49 81 # server/supervisor knows how to interpret the ref; to the client, it is opaque.
cannam@49 82 #
cannam@49 83 # Note that containers intending to implement strong confinement should rewrite SturdyRefs
cannam@49 84 # received from the external network before passing them on to the confined app. The confined
cannam@49 85 # app thus does not ever receive the raw bits of the SturdyRef (which it could perhaps
cannam@49 86 # maliciously leak), but instead receives only a thing that it can pass back to the container
cannam@49 87 # later to restore the ref. See:
cannam@49 88 # http://www.erights.org/elib/capability/dist-confine.html
cannam@49 89
cannam@49 90 client @1;
cannam@49 91 # The object lives on the "client" or "confined app" end of the connection. Only the client
cannam@49 92 # knows how to interpret the ref; to the server/supervisor, it is opaque. Most clients do not
cannam@49 93 # actually know how to persist capabilities at all, so use of this is unusual.
cannam@49 94 }
cannam@49 95
cannam@49 96 struct VatId {
cannam@49 97 side @0 :Side;
cannam@49 98 }
cannam@49 99
cannam@49 100 struct ProvisionId {
cannam@49 101 # Only used for joins, since three-way introductions never happen on a two-party network.
cannam@49 102
cannam@49 103 joinId @0 :UInt32;
cannam@49 104 # The ID from `JoinKeyPart`.
cannam@49 105 }
cannam@49 106
cannam@49 107 struct RecipientId {}
cannam@49 108 # Never used, because there are only two parties.
cannam@49 109
cannam@49 110 struct ThirdPartyCapId {}
cannam@49 111 # Never used, because there is no third party.
cannam@49 112
cannam@49 113 struct JoinKeyPart {
cannam@49 114 # Joins in the two-party case are simplified by a few observations.
cannam@49 115 #
cannam@49 116 # First, on a two-party network, a Join only ever makes sense if the receiving end is also
cannam@49 117 # connected to other networks. A vat which is not connected to any other network can safely
cannam@49 118 # reject all joins.
cannam@49 119 #
cannam@49 120 # Second, since a two-party connection bisects the network -- there can be no other connections
cannam@49 121 # between the networks at either end of the connection -- if one part of a join crosses the
cannam@49 122 # connection, then _all_ parts must cross it. Therefore, a vat which is receiving a Join request
cannam@49 123 # off some other network which needs to be forwarded across the two-party connection can
cannam@49 124 # collect all the parts on its end and only forward them across the two-party connection when all
cannam@49 125 # have been received.
cannam@49 126 #
cannam@49 127 # For example, imagine that Alice and Bob are vats connected over a two-party connection, and
cannam@49 128 # each is also connected to other networks. At some point, Alice receives one part of a Join
cannam@49 129 # request off her network. The request is addressed to a capability that Alice received from
cannam@49 130 # Bob and is proxying to her other network. Alice goes ahead and responds to the Join part as
cannam@49 131 # if she hosted the capability locally (this is important so that if not all the Join parts end
cannam@49 132 # up at Alice, the original sender can detect the failed Join without hanging). As other parts
cannam@49 133 # trickle in, Alice verifies that each part is addressed to a capability from Bob and continues
cannam@49 134 # to respond to each one. Once the complete set of join parts is received, Alice checks if they
cannam@49 135 # were all for the exact same capability. If so, she doesn't need to send anything to Bob at
cannam@49 136 # all. Otherwise, she collects the set of capabilities (from Bob) to which the join parts were
cannam@49 137 # addressed and essentially initiates a _new_ Join request on those capabilities to Bob. Alice
cannam@49 138 # does not forward the Join parts she received herself, but essentially forwards the Join as a
cannam@49 139 # whole.
cannam@49 140 #
cannam@49 141 # On Bob's end, since he knows that Alice will always send all parts of a Join together, he
cannam@49 142 # simply waits until he's received them all, then performs a join on the respective capabilities
cannam@49 143 # as if it had been requested locally.
cannam@49 144
cannam@49 145 joinId @0 :UInt32;
cannam@49 146 # A number identifying this join, chosen by the sender. May be reused once `Finish` messages are
cannam@49 147 # sent corresponding to all of the `Join` messages.
cannam@49 148
cannam@49 149 partCount @1 :UInt16;
cannam@49 150 # The number of capabilities to be joined.
cannam@49 151
cannam@49 152 partNum @2 :UInt16;
cannam@49 153 # Which part this request targets -- a number in the range [0, partCount).
cannam@49 154 }
cannam@49 155
cannam@49 156 struct JoinResult {
cannam@49 157 joinId @0 :UInt32;
cannam@49 158 # Matches `JoinKeyPart`.
cannam@49 159
cannam@49 160 succeeded @1 :Bool;
cannam@49 161 # All JoinResults in the set will have the same value for `succeeded`. The receiver actually
cannam@49 162 # implements the join by waiting for all the `JoinKeyParts` and then performing its own join on
cannam@49 163 # them, then going back and answering all the join requests afterwards.
cannam@49 164
cannam@49 165 cap @2 :AnyPointer;
cannam@49 166 # One of the JoinResults will have a non-null `cap` which is the joined capability.
cannam@49 167 #
cannam@49 168 # TODO(cleanup): Change `AnyPointer` to `Capability` when that is supported.
cannam@49 169 }