From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: crossd@gmail.com (Dan Cross) Date: Sat, 25 Mar 2017 23:49:43 -0400 Subject: [TUHS] Were all of you.. Hippies? In-Reply-To: <20170326031122.E18D418C097@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> References: <20170326031122.E18D418C097@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> Message-ID: On Sat, Mar 25, 2017 at 11:11 PM, Noel Chiappa wrote: > I can't wait to see how you all fit remote procedure calls into a file > paradigm. > I don't mean to sound flippant, but isn't that exactly what every RPC protocol implemented on top of sockets has done for the last 30 or so years? I feel like saying otherwise conflates two tangentially related things: namespaces to name IPC endpoints in a "file" like manner, and an API to deal with file-like objects as a byte stream on which one uses operations like read and write. Certainly there is no REASON that sendto() et al can't be implemented in terms of write(), but arguably the plethora of such as *system calls* stems from the inability to name them in a way accessible to open(). The plan9 model is imperfect but serves as the existence proof that it *can* be done. - Dan C. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: