On 12/06/2014 04:56 AM, Mike Bird wrote:
Hi Jude, You certainly have some interesting ideas. If you decide to proceed you'll have a lot of work and you may or may not succeed. But the only way we move forward is by people trying and sometimes succeeding. --Mike
I think other aspects of Plan 9, like union directories and per-process namespaces, work synergistic with p9 and complete the scheme, so this gets complicated. People have been proposing Plan 9 ideas for years, and incorporating them into the kernel and userspace. (I think /proc and /dev are examples). If possible, I would plan it like a regular project. Read Bell Lab's 9p spec and note what the authors see as the solution to Unix. Compare this to Linux 9p (probably time for rtfsc), and make sure it's more than a partial or token implementation. Suppress gag reflex and read dbus spec. Then look at the kdbus tree and note what the *authors* see as the solution to themselves. :) kdbus is what such a project will be competing with. Then compare p9 to kdbus in the kernel, rtfsc-wise and testing-wise, in a true apples to apples comparison (as much as possible). Maybe run some benchmarks and other tests. Then convert a package or two to the new "IPC" scheme to see how it works. It's probably worth documenting the problems and proposed solutions, before committing to writing code, so get sufficient comment and buy-in. Offhand, this looks like a massive project. All of this is new to me, so I would have to be a follower and not a leader in something like this, but it looks promising.