On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 10:36 AM, Skip Tavakkolian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I just want to have
>> separate protocol ops for messages versus a single extension op. I
>> suppose the difference is largely an implementation decision assuming
>> your protocol operation space is large enough
>
> the thinking is that it's the least polluting -- in regard to 9P
> messages -- while still allowing for many categories of ops.
>
> but almost immediately there has to be a standard for the
> extension message content. maybe it could be XML/SOAP :)
>
I guess the difference between
<extended op> <extended args...>
and
Text <extended op> <extended args...>
is lost on me. We've (currently) got a large enough op-code space to
satisfy all the Plan 9 operations, all the Octopus variant operations,
all the Linux VFS API, and still have a hundred or so op-codes to
spare. While I have no doubt the Linux community will figure out a
way to exhaust the number of operations, it is not currently a
practical concern. Using the protocol version specification in
Tversion you can potentially provide alternate sets of operations, but
I think that's worth avoiding.
-eric
