From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Message-ID: <009a9ae2f5f2a8e9baaa3bd932012eb0@quintile.net>
From: "Steve Simon" <steve@quintile.net>
Date: Sun,  1 Jul 2007 10:05:16 +0100
To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
Subject: Re: [9fans] URI scheme for 9P2000 resources
In-Reply-To: <20070701062425.GX28917@kris.home>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 8e20202e-ead2-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

I'am no fan of URIs, however if we must have them:

> The only real problem I see here 
> is that the protocol specification. It would be nice to handle unix 
> domain sockets, since p9p uses them, but I think any other 
> protocol would be superfluous, and should probably be part of 
> the resource.

Wouldn't a heuristic be enough here? if the host specified is the localhost
then forst try to attach to a Unix domain socket, if that fails then try
an IN connection to the localhost instead, the port number would become
the socket's path.

If this where ever used on plan9 the name would (I guess) become the name in /srv
where the fd was posted.

this way we have one uniform uri [sic].

-Steve