On Sat, 18 Jul 2009 10:20:11 PDT Skip Tavakkolian <9...@9netics.com> wrote: > > Or is there a better idea? This certainly seems preferable > > to RPC or plain byte pipes for communicating structured > > values. > > i have some incomplete ideas that are tangentially related to this -- > more for handling interfaces. > > it seems one could write a compiler that translates an interface > definition (e.g. IDL) into a server and a client library; 9p(2) and > ioproc(2) can be readily used in the generated code to do the tricky > stuff. the main part then becomes how to translate the calls across.
I did something like this (map a file of ascii struct defns to C++ classes that included serialization/deserialization) for the only company both of us have worked in! These days I am likely to just use s-exprs if the choice is mine. The joy of sexpr :-) On Sat, 18 Jul 2009 14:32:30 CDT Eric Van Hensbergen <eri...@gmail.com> wrote: > getting a pipe end to something somehow is why you really want to > leverage the namespace as a 9p file system. Indeed but it is a separable concern (just like authentication).
