I was going through my operating systems textbook and I came across the concept of “separating mechanism and policy”. I wasn’t sure of what that meant so I checked out wikipedia which I must admit, was not of much help either.
The separation of mechanism and
policy[1] is a design principle in
computer science. It states that
mechanisms (those parts of a system
implementation that control the
authorization of operations and the
allocation of resources) should not
dictate (or overly restrict) the
policies according to which decisions
are made about which operations to
authorize, and which resources to
allocate.
Could someone tone this down, and explain if possible with a few examples what separation of mechanism and policy means in the context of Operating systems?
Here is what this means for the X-Windows system.
X-Windows, at the very base level, provides a way of manipulating screen areas called ‘windows’. It also provides a way to receive events that happen inside windows.
But X-Windows says nothing about title bars, menus, scrollbars or any of that stuff. It also doesn’t say anything about the rules by which a particular application can make its window occupy the whole screen, or when a window has to be moved off the screen. It does provide a way for one application to force other applications to ask it permission before doing things with top-level windows, but doesn’t provide any such application as part of the base server.
X-Windows is all about mechanism, not policy.
The policy is provided by the widget toolkit, by the window manager, and by other things added to the system later. Many widget toolkits, for example, use a set of overlapping sub-windows for scrollbars and ask for mouse events for these sub-windows so they can detect click and drag operations and make the sub-windows respond appropriately.
This is why, for example, GNOME and KDE can get along on the same display, and why really old X-Windows programs that know nothing about panels or desktops still work just fine on modern systems.