On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 12:30 PM, Eric Van Hensbergen <eri...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Not really, the intent was that servers could implement a subset of > the .L features, and return Rerror for any that they don't. Wonderful! Floren is already fixing plan 9 servers to work this way anyway :-) > That isn't currently supported by anything (that I am aware of), > although I imagine the right response woul dbe 9p2000.L.op. Of > course, the op guys specified their stuff as an entirely different > protocol, so not currently a problem. It was just an example, I picked op out of the air, I well know that it's not the right example ;-) > Doesn't really work in multi-account environments where uid on one > system doesn't equal uid on the other system. Also introduces > potential parse problems. but names are not guaranteed to be the either, right? I don't see that names solve this versus numbers. > Hey man, IIRC you were Lucho's boss when he did the .u implementation > -- so it's all your fault :P I was the guy who never liked it, but I figured you smart guys would work it all out :-) ron
