2009/8/13 David Leimbach <leim...@gmail.com>: > On 8/13/09, erik quanstrom <quans...@coraid.com> wrote: >>> we don't use te*xt for 9p, do we? >> >> the difference being, 9p is the transport not >> the representation of the data and 9p has >> a fixed set of messages. > Also 9p aims at file systems pretty obviously where Thirft is a > generic RPC mechanism with stub compilers for bindings for several > languages.
i wasn't trying to defend the RPC mechanism, just the data format, which i think can be fine when bandwidth is an issue. doing everything with text in the filesystem is no magic bullet either. many textual formats in plan 9 could do with being a little more self-describing. > I have not been able to convince coworkers that filesystem namespaces > are the way to go. I think they think it is too hard. i think it's undeniably true that writing a 9p/styx file server is harder than writing a function to be called via some RPC mechanism. personally, i think that the added value you get from having the filesystem abstraction is well worth the cost, but it is an arguable point.
