[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Hurdish TCP stack
From: |
Lluis |
Subject: |
Re: Hurdish TCP stack |
Date: |
Thu, 3 Apr 2008 17:38:23 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Mutt 1.5.17+20080114 (2008-01-14) |
El Thu, Apr 03, 2008 at 05:16:24PM +0200, Ludovic Courtès ens deleit� amb les
seg�ents paraules:
>> Well, I don't know how rpctrace internally works, but I suppose it's
>> someting similar to ptrace, which gives information at "use-time", while
>> such a filesystem would need some kind of introspection mechanism on the
>> destination servers, in order to be able to figure out what methods are
>> available, as well as their signature.
>
> It should suffice to have information about message IDs, rather than a
> full description of RPC signatures, which would be complex. `rpctrace'
> looks at the IDs of messages that are exchanged and fetches RPC
> descriptions from special files that map those IDs to RPC descriptions
> (roughly).
But as I understand it, rpctrace can only look at ongoing messages, so you
won't be able to build a FS interface for functions that have not been
called before, unless the translator exposing RPCs to FS already knows the
available methods (the IDs) *and* their signature, which renders the
translator as totally non-generic.
My idea about introspection was to have a dumb and generic translator build
the FS interface for any given server.
>> A quick hack to that could be to store that information in a special
>> section in the ELF (generated by the idl compiler), which simply lists the
>> available RPCs and their signature.
>
> You are not necessarily able to access the executable that's translating
> a given node. A better approach would be to have all translators
> implement a "meta-interface" that provides RPCs such as
> "get_supported_msgids ()", etc (this is similar to what D-Bus has, for
> instance, except that D-Bus is able to produce a stand-alone interface
> description in XML). The server-side RPC handling for this interface
> could probably be automatically generated, with special support from
> MiG.
Well, the only idea behind embedding that info in the ELF was to avoid
having "useless" code in the binary.
> Anyway, I'm not sure there's so much value in doing this. ;-)
There probably is none, except for the case you want to expose any server
operation through the FS, which I'm not sure of its worthiness. It was just
a random thought from the /net FS discussion :)
Read you,
Lluis
--
"And it's much the same thing with knowledge, for whenever you learn
something new, the whole world becomes that much richer."
-- The Princess of Pure Reason, as told by Norton Juster in The Phantom
Tollbooth
Re: Hurdish TCP stack, olafBuddenhagen, 2008/04/01