From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Content-type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=US-ASCII
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2009 12:50:47 -0700
From: Roman Shaposhnik <rvs@sun.com>
In-reply-to: <5bfa6a719e49e0e7c84a73d1257a8a66@quanstro.net>
To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@9fans.net>
Message-id: <0A1D14F2-63A1-432C-9B35-E1C6A4276DE4@sun.com>
References: <5bfa6a719e49e0e7c84a73d1257a8a66@quanstro.net>
Subject: Re: [9fans] 9P writes for directories
Topicbox-Message-UUID: ca3475e0-ead4-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

On Mar 26, 2009, at 12:35 PM, erik quanstrom wrote:
>> question: is there anything that HTTP makes us lose except
>> for the transactional nature of create?
>
> sanity?

That's dead and buried already :-( But I've got be honest
with you -- REST is actually the closes thing to 9P
that has a potential to excite PHBs and thus get approved.
HTTP is stateless, yes, but the biggest PITA that brought us
so far would be authentication, not the core functionality.

>> to "create" would be POST with a metadata payload on a
>> "subdirectory" URI. But of course, it is not a create at all.
>
> i'm not sure what fine hair you're trying to split.  why can't the
> post contain the same information a create would?


If "hair splitting" is the answer to the original question -- that's
completely fine. In fact, I was looking for that to be an answer.
It's just that everytime I see something being explicitly forbidden
in 9P spec there's usually a pretty good reason for that.

Thanks,
Roman.