From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu From: "Thomas Bushnell, BSG" Message-ID: <87k7wztt7n.fsf@becket.becket.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii References: <87hes5vzj1.fsf@becket.becket.net>, <200111091731.MAA22113@augusta.math.psu.edu> Subject: Re: [9fans] Plan 9 Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2001 10:33:08 +0000 Topicbox-Message-UUID: 1edd7002-eaca-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025 cross@math.psu.edu (Dan Cross) writes: > In article <87hes5vzj1.fsf@becket.becket.net> you write: > >I think that it's not actually necessary to have a separate naming > >scheme, except for the case of privileged maintenance procedures that > >want to be able to get at every object. > > So how do you reference the objects? Even a disk block address can > be thought of as a name. Amoeba did it by assigning each object a > 128-bit globally unique identifier, and then defining a mapping from > ``name'' to OID. In a sense, the OID is a name which references a > specific object. You need some such underlying scheme to be able to > get at the objects. There certainly do need to be some kind of universal ID's inside the system. I just suspect it's not ever necessary to export those ID's to the user, that's all. Rather like how Lisp never exports actual machine addresses to the users of objects. > Amoeba did it; go ask Andy Tannenbaum. Now, can we please take the > discussiout out of 9fans? It's pretty clear that you're not interested > in much other than bitching. Well, I'm posting to comp.os.plan9, whose name indicates nothing about the obligation to be a fan. Though I am a fan about lots of parts of Plan 9.