From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTinTA00yUuQKDWfqTH3NDgMDq4b1xmLJEY4Xw4vZ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <eba624e58560ae3fa25ed54905eb7727@ladd.quanstro.net>
	<75ea74312ad96f76de8cd4b3291ffb1d@brasstown.quanstro.net>
	<AANLkTik0LMeWaT5wo2RRWcrzqRz+RX2a_o45UjcFSMgs@mail.gmail.com>
	<d8838076af10656ad31056e8704f034b@chula.quanstro.net>
	<1e4bfd86eef85bbf4434f8ef22b6fed7@plug.quanstro.net>
	<AANLkTi=6P_m+XM7REhYYiLuRft_UccjVj+SoNH8cZNAR@mail.gmail.com>
	<948e9cbd967366d058ac8a033ce93f5f@plug.quanstro.net>
	<AANLkTi=RGkzqgWmwSjxsa3ok4dB+9LTFWJp+DOzz7o=E@mail.gmail.com>
	<AANLkTikvbZ0puqG=T01ZB6hSGKPmmzBFByU43oFn43A3@mail.gmail.com>
	<53acf6ebfa4f01bbe09d6ed494ef68b1@plug.quanstro.net>
	<AANLkTi=Ay3MzQ4TZO1uJdnD24Tqv-PbOuMzt4fjb+r8Y@mail.gmail.com>
	<AANLkTinT7OKJyhCVh8_5Y0J+d9wtBE8w4yKS1RLa=axQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<AANLkTim7cWNy6t=keucv0gKN+rUDhHA7O8JFh+9ZDMFK@mail.gmail.com>
	<AANLkTinTA00yUuQKDWfqTH3NDgMDq4b1xmLJEY4Xw4vZ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2010 10:22:51 -0600
Message-ID: <AANLkTik405F5QyOo+amCwMk6_NkRbpZKZb_hvjZy=+Dc@mail.gmail.com>
From: Eric Van Hensbergen <ericvh@gmail.com>
To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@9fans.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: Re: [9fans] p9p factotum available for plan 9
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 7b00cf9e-ead6-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 9:55 AM, Russ Cox <rsc@swtch.com> wrote:
>> I don't use it from plan9ports. =A0Not sure if Lucho is still using it
>> (or variants).
>>
>> But.... why does version negotiation muck things up? =A0It seems like if
>> the other side isn't responding with .u then there shouldn't be any
>> issues.
>
> It just complicates everything, especially in a
> protocol multiplexer. =A0You have to keep track
> of whether you're serving .u because it changes
> the layout of various messages and also the dir
> struct. =A0I was happy to support the experiment but
> it sounds like the experiment has failed.
>

The complications with overloading existing operations is why we
started going with a new approach (.L).  I just wanted to make sure I
understood the issues in the p9p version to make sure we aren't
repeating them.

        -eric