Re: [9fans] 9p2010

[David Leimbach <leimy2k@gmail.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 954 bytes --]

On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 10:28 AM, erik quanstrom <quanstro@quanstro.net>wrote:

> > as a starting point, i'd envisaged simply changing the existing
> > system calls to do sequences.
> >
> [...]
> >
> > Sequence: adt {
> >       queue: fn(seq: self ref Sequence, m: Tmsg, tag: any);
> >       wait: fn(seq: self ref Sequence): (any, Tmsg, Rmsg);
> >       cont: fn(seq: self ref Sequence);
> >       flush: fn(seq: self ref Sequence);
> > }
>
> this is significantly more complicated than syscalls.
>
> - erik
>

Are we doing all of this to defeat the conveniences we get from the
statefulness of 9p?  Would a stateless 9p-like protocol be better (no
walks)?  Is a stateless 9p really HTTP?  :-)

If those are all yeses, are we re-inventing the wheel?  Or does 9p or some
derivative really have to get used everywhere? :-)

I mean if we figure this out, great, but if not, I think we're still ok,
just can't use 9p right?  :-)

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1440 bytes --]