From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: <775b8d190811111118q7a556629r8d6413971842d926@mail.gmail.com> Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2008 21:18:29 +0200 From: "Bruce Ellis" To: "Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs" <9fans@9fans.net> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <1226365206.17713.390.camel@goose.sun.com> <29302f743a99f05c1d9ac196b0245f81@9netics.com> Subject: Re: [9fans] Do we have a catalog of 9P servers? Topicbox-Message-UUID: 3c26bfba-ead4-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 Eric Sir, That's what I proposed in Madrid when introducing [TR]ext. It cannot hurt. Forward unknown transactions. The destination will Rerror on crap - it was buggered anyway (as Roy adn HG would say).. brucee (back in volos, i went the wrong way and got stuck on skiathos) On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 6:02 PM, Eric Van Hensbergen wrote: > On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 9:37 AM, Skip Tavakkolian <9nut@9netics.com> wrote: >> >> operations like these (symlink, readlink, lock, etc.) that only have >> significance at the extremities should not worry the transit relays. >> that was the reason for Text/Rext proposal. >> >> regardless, interpretation of the ops in a hetergeneous environment >> will be a problem. >> > > Transitive mounts aside, why shouldn't intermediates just forward > unknown messages? End-points which receive messages they don't know > how to deal with just return Error and the client adjusts accordingly. > Endpoint interpretation of operations should be well documented to > prevent silliness and invisible hedgehogs named Dimsdale. > > I suppose this is the same thing you are saying, I just want to have > separate protocol ops for messages versus a single extension op. I > suppose the difference is largely an implementation decision assuming > your protocol operation space is large enough.... > > -eric > >