Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbatt!ucbvax!sdcsvax!darrell
From: darrell@sdcsvax.UUCP
Newsgroups: mod.os
Subject: Re: Experiences with RPC
Message-ID: <2597@sdcsvax.UCSD.EDU>
Date: Mon, 26-Jan-87 10:18:00 EST
Article-I.D.: sdcsvax.2597
Posted: Mon Jan 26 10:18:00 1987
Date-Received: Tue, 27-Jan-87 03:57:26 EST
Sender: darrell@sdcsvax.UCSD.EDU
Organization: Carnegie-Mellon University, CS/RI
Lines: 19
Approved: mod-os@sdcsvax.uucp

--

An alternative version of the same strategy is to use machine dependent
format for messages local to the machine (perhaps also for messages between
the same type of machine), and then to use a canonical format on the
network.  This requires very little more overhead than the strategy of
always using a canonical format, yet avoids the cost of translations in the
most important cases.

This strategy is actually implemented by the Accent (and now Mach) IPC
systems.  It is possible because messages contain type information
describing the fields in them.  Non-local messages are implemented by a
server which translates the messages and sends them over the net.  At the
same time, the anonymous nature of the port abstraction allows applications
to remain ignorant of whether the messages they send are local or not.

  Rob

--