I've been hacking away at Spritely (see previously). Recently I've been making progress on both the actor model (goblins and its rewrite goblinoid) as well as the storage layers (currently called Magenc and Crystal, but we are talking about probably renaming the both of them into a suite called "datashards"... yeah, everything is moving and changing fast right now.)
In the #spritely channel on freenode a friend asked, what is the big picture idea here? Both the actor model layer and the storage layer describe themselves as using "capabilities" (or more precisely "object capabilities" or "ocaps") but they seem to be implemented differently. How does it all tie together?
A great question! I think the first point of confusion is that while both follow the ocap paradigm (which is to say, reference/possession-based authority... possessing the capability gives you access, and it does not matter what your identity is for the most part for access control), they are implemented very differently because they are solving different problems. The storage system is based on encrypted, persistent data, with its ideas drawn from Tahoe-LAFS and Freenet, and the way that capabilities work is based on possession of cryptographic keys (which are themselves embedded/referenced in the URIs). The actor model, on the other hand, is based on holding onto a reference to a unique, unguessable URL (well, that's a bit of an intentional oversimplification for the sake of this explaination but we'll run with it) where the actor at that URL is "live" and communicated with via message passing. (Most of the ideas from this come from E and Waterken.) Actors are connected to each other over secure channels to prevent eavesdropping or leakage of the capabilities.
So yeah, how do these two seemingly very different layers tie together? As usual, I find that I most easily explain things via narrative, so let's imagine the following game scenario: Alice is in a room with a goblin. First Alice sees the goblin, then Alice attacks the goblin, then the goblin and Alice realize that they are not so different and become best friends.
The goblin and Alice both manifest in this universe as live actors. When Alice walks into the room (itself an actor), the room gives Alice a reference to the goblin actor. To "see" the goblin, Alice sends a message to it asking for its description. It replies with its datashards storage URI with its 3d model and associated textures. Alice can now query the storage system to reconstruct these models and textures from the datashards storage systems she uses. (The datashards storage systems themselves can't actually see the contents if they don't have the capability itself; this is much safer for peers to help the network share data because they can help route things through the network without personally knowing or being responsible for what the contents of those messages are. It could also be possible for the goblin to provide Alice with a direct channel to a storage system to retrieve its assets from.) Horray, Alice got the 3d model and images! Now she can see the goblin.
Assuming that the goblin is an enemy, Alice attacks! Attacking is common in this game universe, and there is no reason necessarily to keep around attack messages, so sending a message to the goblin is just a one-off transient message... there's no need to persist it in the storage system.
The attack misses! The goblin shouts, "Wait!" and makes its case, that both of them are just adventurers in this room, and shouldn't they both be friends? Alice is touched and halts her attack. These messages are also sent transiently; while either party could log them, they are closer to an instant messenger or IRC conversation rather than something intended to be persisted long-term.
They exchange their mailbox addresses and begin sending each other letters. These, however, are intended to be persisted; when Alice receives a message from the goblin in her mailbox (or vice versa), the message received contains the datashards URI to the letter, which Alice can then retrieve from the appropriate store. She can then always refer to this message, and she can choose whether or not to persist it locally or elsewhere. Since the letter has its own storage URI, when Alice constructs a reply, she can clearly mark that it was in reference to the previous letter. Even if Alice or the goblin's servers go down, either can continue to refer to these letters. Alice and the goblin have the freedom to choose what storage systems they wish, whether targeted/direct/local or via a public peer to peer routing system, with reasonable assumptions (given the continued strength of the underlying cryptographic algorithms used) that the particular entities storing or forwarding their data cannot read its content.
And so it is: live references of actors are able to send live, transient messages, but can only be sent to other actors whose (unguessable/unforgeable) address you have. This allows for highly dynamic and expressive interactions while retaining security. Datashards URIs allow for the storage and retrieval of content which can continue to be persisted by interested parties, even if the originating host goes down.
There are some things I glossed over in this writeup. The particular ways that the actors' addresses and references work is one thing (unguessable http based capability URLs on their own have leakage problems due to the way various web technologies are implemented, and not even every actor reference needs to be a long-lived URI; see CapTP for more details), how to establish connections between actor processes/servers (we can reuse TLS, or even better, something like tor's onion services), so are how interactions such as fighting can be scoped to a room (this paper explains how), as well as how we can map human meaningful names onto unguessable identifiers (the answer there is petnames). But I have plans for this and increasing confidence that it will come together... I think we're already on track.
Hopefully this writeup brings some clarity on how some of the components will work together, though!