On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 1:52 AM, Eric Van Hensbergen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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.
What's the current default behaviour for unknown message types? I'm guessing existing servers would respond with Rerror. Since you want to forward unknown ops, I think this makes a case for Text/Rext - it's a simpler modification to forward Text messages than forward all message types within a certain range, especially if other protocol changes happen in the future. OTOH, I guess the idea is a minimal change to the plan 9 routines to forward unknown messages, rather than educating it about the different types. In that case there isn't so much difference, though I'm not sure how you tell whether a particular server is an endpoint vs a transitive mount - seems you'd have to add a flag to lib9p and at that point you seem to have less to worry about if you just educate it about Text/Rext... -sqweek
