From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2005 07:23:39 -0400 From: Russ Cox To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@cse.psu.edu> Subject: Re: [9fans] Re: some Plan9 related ideas In-Reply-To: <20051017071433.GA29494@server4.lensbuddy.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline References: <19450.1125421653@piper.nectar.cs.cmu.edu> <600308d60508301033589f9f55@mail.gmail.com> <20051017071433.GA29494@server4.lensbuddy.com> Topicbox-Message-UUID: 9b267400-ead0-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 > I was reading old archives, and I'm probably a bit dense; but what is > the reason to use the same tag for the three messages? The reason is you don't have to wait for the response to the first before sending the second and third, avoiding two round trip times. > Wouldn't that be able to break a server that expected tags not to be > reused until the corresponding Rmessage had been sent? Yes, but I did say I was redefining the protocol. And single-threaded servers (the majority of our servers by code volume) don't care. Define that a client may send more than one message with the same tag, and in that case servers must process those messages sequentially. This is not very hard to implement on the server side, and the single-threaded servers needn't change at all. Russ