Re: [9fans] A simple experiment

[David Leimbach <leimy2k@gmail.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1184 bytes --]

On Thu, Apr 29, 2010 at 7:35 AM, erik quanstrom <quanstro@quanstro.net>wrote:

> > But then I start to wonder why we feel we want to compete with HTTP when
> it
> > already works, and is still fairly simple.  Nothing wrong with improving
> 9P
> > I suppose, but what's so wrong with HTTP transfers that it warrants
> changing
> > our beloved resource sharing protocol?  Maybe I'm being too practical,
> and
> > not feeling adventurous or something :-)
>
> do we put a http bag on the side of every /n/remoteslowlink
> fileserver, since 9p can't take care of it's own business?
>
> - erik
>
> It's not quite fair to say 9P *can't* take care of it.  The question is
"does it take care of it well enough?".

I guess my point is we can change 9P to suit every purpose under the sun if
we want, but then does it still have all the nice simple, properties of 9P?
 Wasn't IL somewhat abandoned because to make it as good as TCP you
basically had to implement TCP anyway?

I'm totally undecided on this, but just asking the question to make sure
everyone feels good about adding streaming to 9P, which seems to indicate a
need to add flow control as well.

Dave

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1597 bytes --]