From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Message-Id: <200111212326.fALNQID79923@devil.lucid>
Content-Type: text/plain;
  charset="iso-8859-1"
From: Matt <matt@proweb.co.uk>
To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
Subject: Re: [9fans] Private Namespaces for Linux
References: <20011121230242.76BEC199E7@mail.cse.psu.edu>
In-Reply-To: <20011121230242.76BEC199E7@mail.cse.psu.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2001 23:26:18 +0000
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 273e269c-eaca-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025

On Wednesday 21 November 2001 23:02, you wrote:
> > Maybe the TCP overhead isn't as bad in practice as originally feared.
>
> The point about message delimiters is more relevant to why IL is less
> relevant to us today.  The 9P2000 protocol is easy to parse and the new
> code handles assembly early on, so delimiters are no longer necessary
> or even helpful.
>
> -rob

how backwards compatible will 9p2000 be?

I'm just getting to a point where I want to implement my first fileserver and
although no time will be wasted doing it in the [not yet] old way how
different will 9p2000 implementation be?