From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: <8ccc8ba40711300139i61b83aa6o31c658a37a2ecae3@mail.gmail.com> Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2007 10:39:37 +0100 From: "Francisco J Ballesteros" To: weigelt@metux.de, "Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs" <9fans@cse.psu.edu> Subject: Re: [9fans] 9P vs. OP In-Reply-To: <20071130084155.GA14203@nibiru.local> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <20071130084155.GA14203@nibiru.local> Cc: Topicbox-Message-UUID: 0f48c700-ead3-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 We have a (secret, as usual) plan to implement another version of Op so that its semantics match styx for files not QTCACHEABLE yet it could even outperform Op for QTCACHEABLE files. It's still not clear yet the best way to decorate qids, but we thing we can do it. That's scheduled after o/mero o/live, which means that I still have to debug the sam command language for o/live, and that means no one should hold the breath waiting for this thing to be available. On Nov 30, 2007 9:41 AM, Enrico Weigelt wrote: > > Hi folks, > > I've read some bit about OP and wonder if 9P could be extended > to support the new operations from OP transparently if an client > asks for. This could make the proxy unnecessary in many situations. > > cu > -- > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > Enrico Weigelt == metux IT service - http://www.metux.de/ > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > Please visit the OpenSource QM Taskforce: > http://wiki.metux.de/public/OpenSource_QM_Taskforce > Patches / Fixes for a lot dozens of packages in dozens of versions: > http://patches.metux.de/ > --------------------------------------------------------------------- >