[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Hurdish TCP stack
From: |
olafBuddenhagen |
Subject: |
Re: Hurdish TCP stack |
Date: |
Wed, 2 Apr 2008 00:05:34 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.5.17+20080114 (2008-01-14) |
Hi,
On Tue, Apr 01, 2008 at 02:55:28PM +0200, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
> "Joshua Stratton" <strattonbrazil@gmail.com> writes:
> Plan 9 does everything through "ctl" files that can be read and
> written to with `cat' and `echo', pretty much like Linux sysfs. The
> downside is that all commands have to be parsed and interpreted.
>
> I suppose a more "hurdish" solution would be to use a dedicated RPC
> interface (e.g., one with a `set_packet_size ()' RPC) rather than just
> use the `io' interface for everything.
A filesystem based interface is much easier to use for most programmers
than generic RPCs.
In cases where it is really useful, we can use native RPCs in *addition*
to the FS-based interface -- it's perfectly possible for a translator to
provide both...
In this particular case however I don't see the need for a specialised
RPC interface -- neither is performance critical, nor do we have
complicated relationships that could be better expressed by such an
interface...
-antrik-
Re: Hurdish TCP stack,
olafBuddenhagen <=