It sounds to me like you have one specific problem you are trying to
generalize by sending ADTs across the wire. Microsoft and IBM "solved"
it with Com & Corba - later picked up by GNOME for the same job -
though, of course, they added RPC into the mix.
XML, S-expr, JSON all try and solve the sa
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
On Sat, Jul 18, 2009 at 1:52 PM, Bakul Shah wrote:
>
> I should've mentioned this won't run on top of plan9 (or
> Unix). What I really want is alt! I brought up RPC but
> really, this is just Limbo's "chan of " idea. In the
> concurrent application where I want to use this, it would
> factor out
On Sat, 18 Jul 2009 06:25:19 EDT erik quanstrom wrote:
> On Sat Jul 18 03:46:01 EDT 2009, bakul+pl...@bitblocks.com wrote:
> > Has anyone extended the idea of channels where the
> > sender/receiver are on different machines (or at least in
> > different processes)? A netcat equivalent for channe
On Sat, Jul 18, 2009 at 1:20 PM, 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 handli
> 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
de
> On Sat, Jul 18, 2009 at 4:38 AM, Akshat
> Kumar wrote:
> > The idea seems inviting at first, but have you
> > given a thought to using plumber(4) for
> > "interprocess messaging" (which is what you
> > want, from what I understand)? This seems
> > more appropriate for communication amongst
> > pr
On Sat, Jul 18, 2009 at 4:38 AM, Akshat
Kumar wrote:
> The idea seems inviting at first, but have you
> given a thought to using plumber(4) for
> "interprocess messaging" (which is what you
> want, from what I understand)? This seems
> more appropriate for communication amongst
> processes alien to
> inferno's file2chan is local too, just giving a simple interface to
> handling plain reads & writes on a file. unless i've been using it
> wrong.
i assume that import and srv could be used to export a fd?
- erik
On Sat, Jul 18, 2009 at 06:25:19AM -0400, erik quanstrom wrote:
> i think the general idea is that if you want to do this between
> arbitrary machines, you provide a 9p interface. you can think
> of 9p as a channel with a predefined set of messages. acme
> does this. kernel devices do this.
>
On Sat Jul 18 03:46:01 EDT 2009, bakul+pl...@bitblocks.com wrote:
> Has anyone extended the idea of channels where the
> sender/receiver are on different machines (or at least in
> different processes)? A netcat equivalent for channels!
i think the general idea is that if you want to do this betw
The idea seems inviting at first, but have you
given a thought to using plumber(4) for
"interprocess messaging" (which is what you
want, from what I understand)? This seems
more appropriate for communication amongst
processes alien to one another than something
so code-level like a chan extension.
Has anyone extended the idea of channels where the
sender/receiver are on different machines (or at least in
different processes)? A netcat equivalent for channels!
Actual plumbing seems easy: one can add a `proxy' thread in
each process to send a message via whatever inter process
mechanism is a
13 matches
Mail list logo
