Hi, Lluis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Well, I don't know how rpctrace internally works, but I suppose it's > someting similar to ptrace, which gives information at "use-time", while > such a filesystem would need some kind of introspection mechanism on the > destination servers, in order to be able to figure out what methods are > available, as well as their signature. It should suffice to have information about message IDs, rather than a full description of RPC signatures, which would be complex. `rpctrace' looks at the IDs of messages that are exchanged and fetches RPC descriptions from special files that map those IDs to RPC descriptions (roughly). > A quick hack to that could be to store that information in a special > section in the ELF (generated by the idl compiler), which simply lists the > available RPCs and their signature. You are not necessarily able to access the executable that's translating a given node. A better approach would be to have all translators implement a "meta-interface" that provides RPCs such as "get_supported_msgids ()", etc (this is similar to what D-Bus has, for instance, except that D-Bus is able to produce a stand-alone interface description in XML). The server-side RPC handling for this interface could probably be automatically generated, with special support from MiG. Anyway, I'm not sure there's so much value in doing this. ;-) Thanks, Ludovic.
