On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 4:30 PM, Ciprian Dorin Craciun
<ciprian.crac...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 14:32, Dan Cross <cro...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 9P itself is not a stream-oriented
>> protocol, nor is it what one would generally call, 'transport
>> technology.'
>
> I would beg to differ on this subject... Because a lot of tools in
> the Plan9 environment expose their facilities as 9p file systems, but
> expose other semantics than that of "generic" files -- i.e. a
> contiguous stream of bytes from start to EOF -- like for example RPC
> semantic in case of factotum; thus I would say that 9p is used as a
> "session" layer in the OSI terminology. (But as in TCP/IP stack we
> don't have other layers between "transport" and "application" I would
> call it a "transport" layer in such a context.)
That's one way of looking at it. However, the "file as a stream of
bytes" abstraction is mapped onto 9P at a higher layer; 9P itself is
really about discrete messages. The canonical "transport" layer in
TCP/IP is TCP.
But we're arguing semantics at that point; regardless, I think you'd
find you hold something of a minority view.
- Dan C.
