From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <3e1162e60908130727h53b56764v7effe03b711140ae@mail.gmail.com> References: <09943c0ba14c52535a710d952cfe0e75@coraid.com> <3e1162e60908130727h53b56764v7effe03b711140ae@mail.gmail.com> Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2009 16:06:12 +0100 Message-ID: From: roger peppe 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] Thrift RPC Topicbox-Message-UUID: 46f39868-ead5-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 2009/8/13 David Leimbach : > On 8/13/09, erik quanstrom wrote: >>> we don't use te*xt for 9p, do we? >> >> the difference being, 9p is the transport not >> the representation of the data and 9p has >> a fixed set of messages. > Also 9p aims at file systems pretty obviously where Thirft is a > generic RPC mechanism with stub compilers for bindings for several > languages. i wasn't trying to defend the RPC mechanism, just the data format, which i think can be fine when bandwidth is an issue. doing everything with text in the filesystem is no magic bullet either. many textual formats in plan 9 could do with being a little more self-describing. > I have not been able to convince coworkers that filesystem namespaces > are the way to go. =C2=A0I think they think it is too hard. i think it's undeniably true that writing a 9p/styx file server is harder than writing a function to be called via some RPC mechanism. personally, i think that the added value you get from having the filesystem abstraction is well worth the cost, but it is an arguable point.