[9fans] file name lengths

[9fans] file name lengths

[forsyth]

>>is, even 28 octets that are mostly null is a problem.  So, since

i find this remark curious, since the bigger potential problem with 9p/styx
is latency, not bandwidth (unless you are careful, with the former,
or careless, with the latter).

[9fans] file name lengths

[G.David]

From: "James A. Robinson" <Jim.Robinson@Stanford.Edu>
>Was there some particular efficency reason to limit the filenames
>to such a small number of bytes?  I can certainly understand not

I can answer from having converted to 256 octets and the biggest
problem is the amount of data tranmitted on the network.  As it
is, even 28 octets that are mostly null is a problem.  So, since
it needed to be addressed at 28, needing to do it for 256 is
not a problem.  Shoot, once you start to change 9P, you might
as well go for it and some other things as well.

I added FNAMELEN = 256 leaving NAMELEN = 28.  This allowed leaving
the ticket stuff alone and let me focus on just filename lengths.

After doing that, all the other source changes were mechanical.

David Butler
gdb@dbSystems.com

[9fans] file name lengths

[James]

On Tue, 06 Oct 1998 14:29:39 -0700 I wrote:

< to such a small number of bytes?  I can certainly understand not
< thinking that sane people don't make reeeealllllly long filenames,

Err. "That sane people don't make..." is what I should have written.
Where did I put that coffee...


Jim

[9fans] file name lengths

[James]

 
> There's the specific problem that 28 bytes is just too short for some
> useful names, especially when some characters take three bytes.  (One
> place where this always shows up is with ftpfs.)  But more generally,
> 9p is not just about files, since every service presents itself via
> 9p.  Even if humans don't type long names very often they might like
> to click on them in acme, and programs might want use long names
> without having to go through an extra layer of indirection.

Was there some particular efficency reason to limit the filenames
to such a small number of bytes?  I can certainly understand not
thinking that sane people don't make reeeealllllly long filenames,
but it is nice not to have a limit that affects ftping things that
have long naming schemes. As I recall, netscape's distributions
have a sensible naming scheme, but one that makes it really long.


Jim