Re: [9fans] p9p factotum available for plan 9

[John Floren <slawmaster@gmail.com>]

On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 3:41 PM, ron minnich <rminnich@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 12:30 PM, Eric Van Hensbergen <ericvh@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Not really, the intent was that servers could implement a subset of
>> the .L features, and return Rerror for any that they don't.
>
> Wonderful! Floren is already fixing plan 9 servers to work this way anyway :-)
>

Actually, I just have my streaming clients/servers give their versions
as 9P2000.s; unrecognized T-messages still get silently dropped. I
decided this was a better option for my current work, since it allows
me to connect to any unmodified 9P file system, rather than go through
and modify every single 9P server out there.

That said, I definitely agree that unrecognized T-messages should get
an Rerror back; I was kind of grossed out when I discovered that they
were being dropped, I had figured that was part of the purpose of
Rerror. If 9P ever has to change again (adding new T-messages), you'll
find it a lot easier to interoperate old and new code if we get
Rerrors on bogus T-messages.

John