From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: References: <011b9189eff1a19b0e074faf782dd598@coraid.com> From: Dan Cross Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2012 21:22:08 -0400 Message-ID: To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@9fans.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: Re: [9fans] Regarding 9p based "protocols" message framing Topicbox-Message-UUID: 6c79693a-ead7-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 4:30 PM, Ciprian Dorin Craciun wrote: > On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 14:32, Dan Cross wrote: >> 9P itself is not a stream-oriented >> protocol, nor is it what one would generally call, 'transport >> technology.' > > =C2=A0 =C2=A0I would beg to differ on this subject... Because a lot of to= ols in > the Plan9 environment expose their facilities as 9p file systems, but > expose other semantics than that of "generic" files -- i.e. a > contiguous stream of bytes from start to EOF -- like for example RPC > semantic in case of factotum; thus I would say that 9p is used as a > "session" layer in the OSI terminology. (But as in TCP/IP stack we > don't have other layers between "transport" and "application" I would > call it a "transport" layer in such a context.) That's one way of looking at it. However, the "file as a stream of bytes" abstraction is mapped onto 9P at a higher layer; 9P itself is really about discrete messages. The canonical "transport" layer in TCP/IP is TCP. But we're arguing semantics at that point; regardless, I think you'd find you hold something of a minority view. - Dan C.