From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: erik quanstrom Date: Tue, 5 Jan 2010 10:23:34 -0500 To: weigelt@metux.de, 9fans@9fans.net Message-ID: <5bcb0e528c3837e94d152a7a4410db21@ladd.quanstro.net> In-Reply-To: <20100105150340.GF21460@nibiru.local> References: <635018e058076d45e5d6bcf01860138a@ladd.quanstro.net> <20100105150340.GF21460@nibiru.local> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [9fans] Design of webfs and webcookies Topicbox-Message-UUID: b7ca3b6e-ead5-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 > Just curious: can an 9P server cleanly differenciate between clients ? > This would be a great help for transaction isolation, IMHO. > > w/o having looked at cookiefs yet, but I would do it like that: > > * get cookies by reading /site-cookies/ > * set cookies by writing ": foo=bar" to /set pipe > (which can stay open for as long as you want) > > This should minimize the amount of messages/roundtrips required in > normal operation and make the client-side really trivial. An non- > blocking write to the "set" file should also reduce latency > (especially when having remote profiles) i think you misunderstand the problem. cookiefs' fs interface is not the issue. cookiefs' robustness when storing the cookies on the fileserver in the face of multiple concurrently running cookiefs' is. - erik