4 ms·
A hierarchical namespace is fine, but the open/read/write/sync/close protocol on byte based files is definitely inadequate. The constraints on usage you decry a
by jasonwatkinspdx 5y ago
A hierarchical namespace is fine, but the open/read/write/sync/close protocol on byte based files is definitely inadequate. The constraints on usage you decry are in fact fundamental constraints of distributed computing that are at odds with the filesystem abstraction. And this is exactly what I was getting at in talking about rose colored glasses with P9. It in no way is a replacement for something like Colossus or Spanner.
- zozbot234 5y ago> P9 ... in no way is a replacement for something like Colossus or Spanner. Colossus and Spanner are both proprietary so there's very limited info on them, but both seem to be built for very specialized goals and constraints. So, not really on the same level as a general system interface like 9P, which is most readily comparable to, e.g. HTTP. In Plan 9, 9P servers are routunely used to locally wrap connections to such exotic systems. You can even require the file system interface locally exposed by 9P to be endowed with extra semantics, e.g. via special messages written to a 'control' file. So any level of compatibility or lack thereof with simple *nix bytestreams can be supported.
- pjmlp 5y agoOr proper graphics programming as well.