Re: [9fans] Private Namespaces for Linux

["rob pike" <rob@plan9.bell-labs.com>]

> how backwards compatible will 9p2000 be?

Semantically, it's quite similar.  The syntax of the messages is quite
different in spots, but that's mostly hidden by the library, or would
be except the library changed too.  Nothing difficult, though; in fact
I find the new directory handling interface (for clients, not servers)
nicer than the old.

Most of the user-level file servers that we had were converted in an
hour or so.  I think I converted both rio and acme in one brief
session.  A few more subtle ones, and our main stand-alone file
server, took much more work for various reasons.  Ftpfs was nasty
because the way the new walk message works is hard to simulate using
the FTP protocol.  Except for such oddballs, I would say the work of
conversion seems proportionate to the complexity of the server itself.

Of course, people less familiar with the conversion process will need
more time to do the work.

So don't worry about the new protocol when you write your server;
conversion won't be a big deal.

-rob