As long as you don't use it for such things (i.e. use it for a real file
system and don't depend on atomic stuff like locks)
I don't see a problem. I used it in 3e for quite a while and never
had any problems. I had to use special bindings to make sure
I didn't try to deliver mail over it, but other than that it was great.
Russ
On 7/6/05, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I am porting Recover to 4e. Recover is a filesystem which speaks
> > 9P with two ends, a server and a client. When a connection falls down
> > it pushes the state and restarts the pending requests, so you don't
> > see a hung channel any more if your connection falls down.
>
> i did something like this for inferno, but couldn't work out what was
> the best thing to do about non-idempotent 9p transactions: if the
> connection is lost before the reply to such a transaction is received,
> what is the correct course of action? the client can't know whether the
> transaction has actually taken place on the server.
>
> examples of such requests:
>
> create
> wstat (rename)
> write to an append-only file
> any operation on a non-standard filesystem (e.g. writing a ctl file)
>
> problems arising from this kind of thing will be
> rare, but all the more insidious when they do actually happen.
>
> in the end, i decided to make such requests yield Rerror("operation possibly
> failed"),
> but i have a niggling feeling that the whole approach is wrong.
>
> thoughts?
>
>
