From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: erik quanstrom <quanstro@quanstro.net>
Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2010 10:35:34 -0400
To: 9fans@9fans.net
Message-ID: <40cf59cfc2735e232f0fd67df725e65d@kw.quanstro.net>
In-Reply-To: <t2j3e1162e61004290554y3a1ea10br5f6ec89cc46ad4c1@mail.gmail.com>
References: <5fa9fbfe115a9cd5a81d0feefe413192@quintile.net>
	<Pine.BSI.4.64.1004280750270.14121@malasada.lava.net>
	<4fa1305e0f56a0ef89c2e05320fa5997@coraid.com>
	<t2y13426df11004281142j3c735545k690dcfae6166cd4d@mail.gmail.com>
	<z2gdf49a7371004290540g29060151k700bac13f78f34dc@mail.gmail.com>
	<t2j3e1162e61004290554y3a1ea10br5f6ec89cc46ad4c1@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [9fans] A simple experiment
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 125ec1da-ead6-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

> But then I start to wonder why we feel we want to compete with HTTP when it
> already works, and is still fairly simple.  Nothing wrong with improving 9P
> I suppose, but what's so wrong with HTTP transfers that it warrants changing
> our beloved resource sharing protocol?  Maybe I'm being too practical, and
> not feeling adventurous or something :-)

do we put a http bag on the side of every /n/remoteslowlink
fileserver, since 9p can't take care of it's own business?

- erik