From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Message-ID: <f158dc670709082046h15b168cev687fc212564b90a8@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat,  8 Sep 2007 21:46:21 -0600
From: "Latchesar Ionkov" <lucho@gmx.net>
To: "Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs" <9fans@cse.psu.edu>
Subject: Re: [9fans] The Web9 Project
In-Reply-To: <5d375e920709081315r76a229fbmf9ba745c52225b1d@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
References: <6a98877f0437be7ed76be727ab932c42@9netics.com>
	<A6A9EB2A-BF4E-43E4-BAD2-C6B67CFA1681@kix.in>
	<5d375e920709081315r76a229fbmf9ba745c52225b1d@mail.gmail.com>
Topicbox-Message-UUID: bc161830-ead2-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

We already agreed on a solution. Nobody is interested in implementing it.

On 9/8/07, Uriel <uriel99@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > have you compared its performance to webdav?
> >
> > I don't have any numbers with me, but I would expect 9P to work
> > faster than WebDAV since 9P works one layer below HTTP.
> > Implementation details aside, header-overhead in itself makes WebDAV
> > a less of a competitor.
>
> Maybe, if you have ridiculously low latency. Which is one of the
> reasons I would like to see the latency issues addressed, so 9P
> services can work well over non-LAN networks. Maybe we can finally
> agree on a solution for this at this year's IWP9?
>
> Best wishes
>
> uriel
>
>