On Wednesday April 25, [email protected] wrote:
>
> I don't say tirpc is bad. What I say is, it's better to handle this the way
> we deal with changes to the kernel: start with what you have, and
> which you know works well. Add to it, until you have the functionality
> you want. On the way, you may find out there's better ways of
> solving things that you anticipated. If you run into sudden problems,
> you can bisect.
>
Following this logic, should we add rpcbind functionality to portmap
rather than throw it out and start with something less known???
I'd have to read up more on rpcbind before I could have an opinion on
that.
NeilBrown
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by DB2 Express
Download DB2 Express C - the FREE version of DB2 express and take
control of your XML. No limits. Just data. Click to get it now.
http://sourceforge.net/powerbar/db2/
_______________________________________________
NFS maillist - [email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nfs
On Thursday 26 April 2007 08:32, Neil Brown wrote:
> Following this logic, should we add rpcbind functionality to portmap
> rather than throw it out and start with something less known???
I'm not sure. The rpcbind code isn't exactly pretty, but neither is
portmap.
Anyway, I guess in order to prove my point about the sunrpc library
I should cough up some code to prove it can be done. I'll be uploading
some patches later tonight or tomorrow.
Olaf
--
Olaf Kirch | --- o --- Nous sommes du soleil we love when we play
[email protected] | / | \ sol.dhoop.naytheet.ah kin.ir.samse.qurax
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by DB2 Express
Download DB2 Express C - the FREE version of DB2 express and take
control of your XML. No limits. Just data. Click to get it now.
http://sourceforge.net/powerbar/db2/
_______________________________________________
NFS maillist - [email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nfs
Olaf Kirch wrote:
> On Thursday 26 April 2007 08:32, Neil Brown wrote:
>
>> Following this logic, should we add rpcbind functionality to portmap
>> rather than throw it out and start with something less known???
>>
>
> I'm not sure. The rpcbind code isn't exactly pretty, but neither is
> portmap.
>
> Anyway, I guess in order to prove my point about the sunrpc library
> I should cough up some code to prove it can be done. I'll be uploading
> some patches later tonight or tomorrow.
>
Before we go too far down the road of ignoring all of the work that
the engineers at Sun have been doing on the RPC library, is there a
way of getting a newer version of the RPC support to start with? The
current stuff is quite old.
Thanx...
ps
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by DB2 Express
Download DB2 Express C - the FREE version of DB2 express and take
control of your XML. No limits. Just data. Click to get it now.
http://sourceforge.net/powerbar/db2/
_______________________________________________
NFS maillist - [email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nfs
On Thursday 26 April 2007 10:59, Olaf Kirch wrote:
> Anyway, I guess in order to prove my point about the sunrpc library
> I should cough up some code to prove it can be done. I'll be uploading
> some patches later tonight or tomorrow.
Okay, here we go. Please have a look at
http://oss.oracle.com/~okir/newrpc/
This makes the client side IPv6 aware, by introducing some concepts
and terminology from TIRPC without pulling in that code wholesale.
(In fact, the only bits I copied from the TIRPC code base were header
files, but that's just because I like to tinker; I guess some things
such as the netconfig stuff might as well be used verbatim, at the
expense of making some code more complicated.)
It hasn't seen much testing; I just confirmed that it still seems to
work with IPv4. The IPv6 side hasn't seen any testing yet.
Please consider this as a proof of concept.
Olaf
--
Olaf Kirch | --- o --- Nous sommes du soleil we love when we play
[email protected] | / | \ sol.dhoop.naytheet.ah kin.ir.samse.qurax
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by DB2 Express
Download DB2 Express C - the FREE version of DB2 express and take
control of your XML. No limits. Just data. Click to get it now.
http://sourceforge.net/powerbar/db2/
_______________________________________________
NFS maillist - [email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nfs
On Fri, Apr 27, 2007 at 05:07:28PM +0200, Olaf Kirch wrote:
> (In fact, the only bits I copied from the TIRPC code base were header
> files, but that's just because I like to tinker; I guess some things
> such as the netconfig stuff might as well be used verbatim, at the
> expense of making some code more complicated.)
I'd be interested in why people want the netconfig stuff. I can't
see how it makes any sense out of context on a socket based system.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by DB2 Express
Download DB2 Express C - the FREE version of DB2 express and take
control of your XML. No limits. Just data. Click to get it now.
http://sourceforge.net/powerbar/db2/
_______________________________________________
NFS maillist - [email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nfs
On Friday 27 April 2007 17:18, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> I'd be interested in why people want the netconfig stuff. I can't
> see how it makes any sense out of context on a socket based system.
Well, it's a nice if you have a single handle that ties address family,
socket type, ipproto and a name (aka netid) together. That's all, at
least from my point of view. Representing all that info as strings
in a netconfig object is not all that useful
Olaf
--
Olaf Kirch | --- o --- Nous sommes du soleil we love when we play
[email protected] | / | \ sol.dhoop.naytheet.ah kin.ir.samse.qurax
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by DB2 Express
Download DB2 Express C - the FREE version of DB2 express and take
control of your XML. No limits. Just data. Click to get it now.
http://sourceforge.net/powerbar/db2/
_______________________________________________
NFS maillist - [email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nfs
Olaf Kirch wrote:
>
> It hasn't seen much testing; I just confirmed that it still seems to
> work with IPv4. The IPv6 side hasn't seen any testing yet.
>
> Please consider this as a proof of concept.
I'm very curious.... why is there such a love affair with the glibc
code? Its one of the oldest version running.. it has not been
well maintained (basically because it couldn't be)... The code has
compatible issues when apps are ported to it (I have bugs to prove
that)... so why is there such a reverence for code that can arguably be
called a lesser implementation?
As far as moving the glibc into a stand alone library, I not
sure how that sense either... I guess the idea is to take the old
code and added in a new network stack resulting in pile of code that has
zero amount testing... verses going with time tested
code that is known to work but does have couple of issues...
From a risk management point of view, it seems to me the latter is
heads and shoulders above the former... so again, why does it make
sense to do this?
steved.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by DB2 Express
Download DB2 Express C - the FREE version of DB2 express and take
control of your XML. No limits. Just data. Click to get it now.
http://sourceforge.net/powerbar/db2/
_______________________________________________
NFS maillist - [email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nfs
On Thu, 2007-04-26 at 09:03 -0400, Peter Staubach wrote:
> Olaf Kirch wrote:
> > On Thursday 26 April 2007 08:32, Neil Brown wrote:
> >
> >> Following this logic, should we add rpcbind functionality to portmap
> >> rather than throw it out and start with something less known???
> >>
> >
> > I'm not sure. The rpcbind code isn't exactly pretty, but neither is
> > portmap.
> >
> > Anyway, I guess in order to prove my point about the sunrpc library
> > I should cough up some code to prove it can be done. I'll be uploading
> > some patches later tonight or tomorrow.
> >
>
> Before we go too far down the road of ignoring all of the work that
> the engineers at Sun have been doing on the RPC library, is there a
> way of getting a newer version of the RPC support to start with? The
> current stuff is quite old.
I managed to find a copy of tirpc99 and the code layout looks very
different. Get it from http://members.plug.org.au/~raven/tirpc99/.
We would need to review the license as I think there's a reason we see
the tirpc 2.3 version everywhere.
Ian
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by DB2 Express
Download DB2 Express C - the FREE version of DB2 express and take
control of your XML. No limits. Just data. Click to get it now.
http://sourceforge.net/powerbar/db2/
_______________________________________________
NFS maillist - [email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nfs