From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Message-ID: <e885d3304d88bbf387c3acd08918a00b@quanstro.net>
From: erik quanstrom <quanstro@quanstro.net>
Date: Sat, 18 Jul 2009 13:06:00 -0400
To: 9fans@9fans.net
In-Reply-To: <3aaafc130907180953h1632d88dubac2bcc712167d7d@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [9fans] channels across machines
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 25d211be-ead5-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

> On Sat, Jul 18, 2009 at 4:38 AM, Akshat
> Kumar<akumar@mail.nanosouffle.net> wrote:
> > The idea seems inviting at first, but have you
> > given a thought to using plumber(4) for
> > "interprocess messaging" (which is what you
> > want, from what I understand)? This seems
> > more appropriate for communication amongst
> > processes alien to one another than something
> > so code-level like a chan extension.
>
> Acme does this.

the plumber is pretty far from a channel.  a channel
has one input and one output.  the plumber has
one input and many ouputs and uses a dynamic
ruleset to route messages.

let's not confuse them.

however, the fact that plumber implements a fs
and the import(4) and cpu(1) illustrates how one
could use a pipe to build a inter-machine chan-like
mechanism.  i say chan-like because this ignores
data marshalling.

- erik