[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       9fans
Subject:    Re: [9fans] APE and 9 together
From:       forsyth () caldo ! demon ! co ! uk
Date:       2001-04-30 11:15:14
Message-ID: 20010430111816.81B30199F6 () mail ! cse ! psu ! edu
[Download RAW message or body]

i don't think scope rules would be enough but that's why i suggested
that if people really want to try they should just get on with it,
and work out and test the details to allow the result to be assessed.
they've got the source.

in an earlier posting i was trying to point out that
the APE library must maintain non-trivial state because the kernel
doesn't implement what's required to emulate sockets and select (amongst others),
nor would i for one particularly like it to do so.  thus
accessing a file descriptor using the Plan 9 system calls -- whether
the interface functions live in a different scope or not -- would not
update the state the APE functions need to maintain.  having those routines
live in different scopes wouldn't suffice to fix it.

that makes it hard to have Plan 9 native code invoke
imported libraries compiled with APE.  that could well be annoying.
(if the imported software is self-contained
commands, as with sim, or Icon or many other things i've
imported, APE is fine.)

on the other hand, at least some of the functions in the Plan 9
libraries that invoke system calls (eg, open, read) or C library calls
expect the Plan 9 behaviour, and wouldn't work without source changes
if linked with the APE library.  that makes it hard to have a program
use arbitrary Plan 9 libraries and APE simultaneously (in general,
although there are many useful specific exceptions).

it's a horrible thought, though, that there could be a slippery slope
that means that we never, ever get to simplify anything ever again
because we need to keep compatibility.



Received: from finch-punt-12.mail.demon.net ([194.217.242.36]) by lavoro; Mon Apr 30 11:40:10 BST 2001
Received: from punt-1.mail.demon.net by mailstore for forsyth@caldo.demon.co.uk
          id 988625192:10:05383:23; Mon, 30 Apr 2001 10:06:32 GMT
Received: from psuvax1.cse.psu.edu ([130.203.4.6]) by punt-1.mail.demon.net
           id aa1103494; 30 Apr 2001 10:06 GMT
Received: from psuvax1.cse.psu.edu (psuvax1.cse.psu.edu [130.203.4.6])
	by mail.cse.psu.edu (CSE Mail Server) with ESMTP
	id C849319A20; Mon, 30 Apr 2001 06:02:33 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from mercury.bath.ac.uk (mercury.bath.ac.uk [138.38.32.81])
	by mail.cse.psu.edu (CSE Mail Server) with ESMTP id E67A5199E1
	for <9fans@cse.psu.edu>; Mon, 30 Apr 2001 05:56:22 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from news by mercury.bath.ac.uk with local (Exim 3.12 #1)
	id 14uAIm-0005ea-00
	for 9fans@cse.psu.edu; Mon, 30 Apr 2001 10:49:08 +0100
Received: from GATEWAY by bath.ac.uk with netnews
	for 9fans@cse.psu.edu (9fans@cse.psu.edu)
To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
From: "Douglas A. Gwyn" <DAGwyn@null.net>
Message-ID: <3AEB4415.7B320F15@null.net>
Organization: Excite@Home - The Leader in Broadband http://home.com/faster
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: <20010428180016.D91AC199ED@mail.cse.psu.edu>
Subject: Re: [9fans] the declaration of main()
Sender: 9fans-admin@cse.psu.edu
Errors-To: 9fans-admin@cse.psu.edu
X-BeenThere: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.1
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
List-Id: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans.cse.psu.edu>
List-Archive: <http://lists.cse.psu.edu/archives/9fans/>
Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2001 09:25:16 GMT

forsyth@caldo.demon.co.uk wrote:
> I don't want that cost in native Plan 9 programs.  I know, I know,
> they could have used `p9read' or `sys_read' instead and avoided the
> main POSIX names and then you could use both ...

What this points out is that we need something like namespaces.

[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]