>But I do think there is value there because DIPC and friends could be very
>valuable as tools for developing applications that work better in a
>distributed manner. If each section of code (thread, process) can operate
>within the framework that DIPC, et al. provide then there is a good argument
>for providing that functionality as an integrated part of the OS where
>things like filesystems and process management and signalling can be
>coordinated with the help of the kernel.
I agree. While there is no need to insist that everything be added to
the kernel, providing the services "thru" the kernel makes things very
compatible and transparent.
If we were to design a distributed programming system for some other
OS, then maybe things would be different. However, we are talking about
Linux here, and DIPC integrates very nicely with the rest of the system
without adding much code to the kernel.
-Kamran
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/