[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Hurdish TCP stack
From: |
Ludovic Courtès |
Subject: |
Re: Hurdish TCP stack |
Date: |
Thu, 03 Apr 2008 17:16:24 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.1 (gnu/linux) |
Hi,
Lluis <xscript@gmx.net> writes:
> 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).
> 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.
Anyway, I'm not sure there's so much value in doing this. ;-)
Thanks,
Ludovic.
Re: Hurdish TCP stack, olafBuddenhagen, 2008/04/01