From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Message-ID: <30986a53285178a90900a7046bb079ea@plan9.escet.urjc.es>
To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
Subject: Re: [9fans] Essay: Is network transparency something bad?
From: Fco.J.Ballesteros <nemo@plan9.escet.urjc.es>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2002 09:24:04 +0200
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 0cb65afa-eacb-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025

> For example, he states "1.  Availability, 2.  Latency and 3.
> Reliability" as the major differences between the local and remote
> resources.  That difference would apply to any two different medium
> like a pair of telephones and a pair of cans connected by a string.

Well, I've never seen a local procedure call suffer from any of them.
However, an rpc might do so.

I think we probably agree that one nice thing of Plan 9 is that you
(1) may control what comes from where (no transparency here), but then you
(2) may just use the resources always in the same way (here you got your
transp.).

I wouldn't like to loose 1 or 2; I just need both to keep things working
and simple.