> But where I only partially agree is where Plan 9 concepts contradict > what may be "common practice". A URL is a well defined object and > adopting it as a standard, as quite a few services have done (I'm > thinking PostgreSQL and OpenLDAP, for example) rather than pursue the > '!' convention seems worth it.
i find plan9 dialstrings much easier to deal with than urls that have all kinds of escapes and encodings depending on which part in the url stuff appears in. they carry alot of baggage arround. urls might appear in ASCII context, then you need to punicode the domain name if it happens to contain non-ascii characters while plan9 dial strings are guaranteed to work consistently. the resolution process is done by ndb/cs and it can accept unicode just fine. plus picking the "!" as a separator works with ipv6 while using ":" needs v6 literal escapes like: [2001:1:2:3:4::]:22 this was a huge mistake. in plan9 we are lucky not to be affected by this too much and we can handle these things without much pain and without touching every program. dialstrings also let you pick the protocol and also the ip stack to use. programs that do not accept dialstrings sabotage a usefull plan9 capability and break consistency. i'm pretty sure the original plan9 ssh1/ssh2 also accept dial strings just fine. thats just like, my opinion, man. -- cinap ------------------------------------------ 9fans: 9fans Permalink: https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/T9c456b888b0c38ed-M48e08819ec859259f6714dcf Delivery options: https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/subscription
