From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2008 10:02:51 -0600 From: "Eric Van Hensbergen" To: "Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs" <9fans@9fans.net> In-Reply-To: <29302f743a99f05c1d9ac196b0245f81@9netics.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <1226365206.17713.390.camel@goose.sun.com> <29302f743a99f05c1d9ac196b0245f81@9netics.com> Subject: Re: [9fans] Do we have a catalog of 9P servers? Topicbox-Message-UUID: 3bcbf814-ead4-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 9:37 AM, Skip Tavakkolian <9nut@9netics.com> wrote: > > operations like these (symlink, readlink, lock, etc.) that only have > significance at the extremities should not worry the transit relays. > that was the reason for Text/Rext proposal. > > regardless, interpretation of the ops in a hetergeneous environment > will be a problem. > Transitive mounts aside, why shouldn't intermediates just forward unknown messages? End-points which receive messages they don't know how to deal with just return Error and the client adjusts accordingly. Endpoint interpretation of operations should be well documented to prevent silliness and invisible hedgehogs named Dimsdale. I suppose this is the same thing you are saying, I just want to have separate protocol ops for messages versus a single extension op. I suppose the difference is largely an implementation decision assuming your protocol operation space is large enough.... -eric