From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2008 10:52:08 -0600 From: "Eric Van Hensbergen" To: "Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs" <9fans@9fans.net> In-Reply-To: <7c5efb383a86c1daae7144dc8e310d5b@9netics.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <7c5efb383a86c1daae7144dc8e310d5b@9netics.com> Subject: Re: [9fans] Do we have a catalog of 9P servers? Topicbox-Message-UUID: 3c072e16-ead4-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 10:36 AM, Skip Tavakkolian <9nut@9netics.com> wrote: >> 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 > > the thinking is that it's the least polluting -- in regard to 9P > messages -- while still allowing for many categories of ops. > > but almost immediately there has to be a standard for the > extension message content. maybe it could be XML/SOAP :) > I guess the difference between and Text is lost on me. We've (currently) got a large enough op-code space to satisfy all the Plan 9 operations, all the Octopus variant operations, all the Linux VFS API, and still have a hundred or so op-codes to spare. While I have no doubt the Linux community will figure out a way to exhaust the number of operations, it is not currently a practical concern. Using the protocol version specification in Tversion you can potentially provide alternate sets of operations, but I think that's worth avoiding. -eric