On Sun, Apr 23, 2006 at 11:23:59AM +0200, Tom Bachmann wrote: > Bas Wijnen wrote: > > On L4.X2, we planned to have a task server doing several things. > > [...] > > I think a similar system could be used to solve the problem in this case. > > no no no. This leads directly to session based protocols we definitely > want to avoid.
It all depends on how you look at it. If you get the death-notification link before every RPC and unlink it after it, then it is simply part of the RPC and doesn't imply sessions. If you really do have a session, then an obvious optimization is to not unlink and relink it between RPCs. Both this approach and the send-once capability can be used to implement both session-based and sessionless protocols. They can be compared for expected performance in both cases, and then we can decide which is better to use. (Of course there may be more options than just these two, but I'm ignoring that here.) Thanks, Bas -- I encourage people to send encrypted e-mail (see http://www.gnupg.org). If you have problems reading my e-mail, use a better reader. Please send the central message of e-mails as plain text in the message body, not as HTML and definitely not as MS Word. Please do not use the MS Word format for attachments either. For more information, see http://129.125.47.90/e-mail.html
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ L4-hurd mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/l4-hurd
