From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-Id: <38DE8925-156D-4CC5-928C-2C8DCA32CD8F@kix.in> From: Anant Narayanan To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@9fans.net> In-Reply-To: <20081110052646.GA22532@nibiru.local> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v929.2) Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2008 06:56:57 +0100 References: <7f331fded9cdd5a14d095ebf7cb854a6@quanstro.net> <8D6F3BBA-4FB8-47D8-9866-2CEC7C84CE99@sun.com> <20081110052646.GA22532@nibiru.local> Subject: Re: [9fans] Do we have a catalog of 9P servers? Topicbox-Message-UUID: 37cb5426-ead4-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 On 10-Nov-08, at 6:26 AM, Enrico Weigelt wrote: > Right now, there's an discussion about moving things into their own > processes (eg. one process per tab) @ dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org, > and I just digged out my (old but still unrecognized) point of using > 9P as IPC and splitting off the currently monolithic app into a bunch > of fileservers. I must say that it is highly unlikely that Mozilla will adopt the path of splitting the "monolithic app into a bunch of fileservers" simply because that would involve a lot work, and potentially a lot code to be written from scratch. There's some history from the old netscape days here; 6.0 bombed because they decided to rewrite everything: http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/fog0000000069.html Lesson learned. No matter how "messy" the Mozilla code looks, there is simply no way the developers would agree to a major redesign of the Mozilla architecture. Solutions that easily "fit into" the existing codebase would be more than welcomed, and I am sure somebody will come up with it. -- Anant