From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Dan Cross Message-Id: <200111091731.MAA22113@augusta.math.psu.edu> To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu Subject: Re: [9fans] Plan 9 In-Reply-To: <87hes5vzj1.fsf@becket.becket.net> References: <20011108140245.3ADD6199F2@mail.cse.psu.edu> Cc: Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2001 12:31:44 -0500 Topicbox-Message-UUID: 1cdda0c4-eaca-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025 In article <87hes5vzj1.fsf@becket.becket.net> you write: >I think that it's not actually necessary to have a separate naming >scheme, except for the case of privileged maintenance procedures that >want to be able to get at every object. So how do you reference the objects? Even a disk block address can be thought of as a name. Amoeba did it by assigning each object a 128-bit globally unique identifier, and then defining a mapping from ``name'' to OID. In a sense, the OID is a name which references a specific object. You need some such underlying scheme to be able to get at the objects. >> So, it this what you are intending? Sorry its taken so long to >> figure it out but your descriptions have been less than clear. > >That's pretty close indeed. Part of the difficulty has been that I'm >trying to work out the idea, not claiming that it's fully formed. Amoeba did it; go ask Andy Tannenbaum. Now, can we please take the discussiout out of 9fans? It's pretty clear that you're not interested in much other than bitching. - Dan C.