Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 13 Dec 2000 21:52:55 -0600 (CST) | From | Chris Lattner <> | Subject | Re: [Korbit-cvs] Re: ANNOUNCE: Linux Kernel ORB: kORBit |
| |
> > either. Oops, wasn't interoperability an important part of the Linux > > kernel design? Didn't we want to use and follow and define _real_ > > standards? > Erm... 9P stub exists for Linux. It exists for FreeBSD. I suspect that > it exists for other *BSD too - never checked that.
Okay, so there are _stubs_ for these platforms. How many languages are there bindings for? What about Win32 (gross I know, but at least for now, it is important)? What about OS/2 what about Amiga and palm? CORBA is very popular for certain things... even inferno isn't nearly as big...
> > Heh, that's interesting. _getting_ the data isn't hard in 9P, actually > > using it or displaying it in a meaningful way commonly requires something > > more than cat. :) > Same for any other RPC mechanism.
Of course. Which is why CORBA is about putting STRUCTURE in that stream of random bytes coming over the wire. Why should I have to rewrite my marshalling and demarshalling code every time I want to write a server. read and write are fine. But sometimes I want a structure. Sometimes, my structures aren't laid out like C struct's either. What then? What if I want to send an "object" to you?
> > nothing enforces it. 9P works wonderfully for Plan9 because they had the > > luxery of redefining/rewriting the whole OS, and the whole interaction > > with user space processes. We, unfortunately, don't have that > > possibility. :) > Notice that they _don't_ export random internal APIs to userland.
And neither do we. Beautiful isn't it? :)
> > Please don't get me wrong. I'm not opposed to other ideas, and 9P may in > > fact turn out to be a very nice protocol that would be able to support > > much kORBit level functionality). I do maintain that by writing a custom > > user->kernel marshalling library, you could obtain better peformance than > > 9P though, because you could take advantage of lots of machine specific > > optimizations. Hell you could even pass things in register if you'd have > > <= 4 args. :) > > You mentioned OOP, didn't you? Encapsulation is a good thing and what you > are talking about is "layering violations made Real Easy(tm)". > I simply don't see why _that_ is a good goal.
I completely fail to see how I'm breaking encapsulation or making layering violations easy. Why I'm talking about is the fact that CORBA doesn't care how you ship bytes around: it's a higher level protocol that cares about shipping "things" around. Bytes are old school, "stuff" is the wave of the future. ;) heh.
-Chris
http://www.nondot.org/~sabre/os/ http://www.nondot.org/MagicStats/ http://korbit.sourceforge.net/
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |