Linked by Hadrien Grasland on Sun 29th May 2011 09:42 UTC
OSNews, Generic OSes It's funny how trying to have a consistent system design makes you constantly jump from one area of the designed OS to another. I initially just tried to implement interrupt handling, and now I'm cleaning up the design of an RPC-based daemon model, which will be used to implement interrupt handlers, along with most other system services. Anyway, now that I get to something I'm personally satisfied with, I wanted to ask everyone who's interested to check that design and tell me if anything in it sounds like a bad idea to them in the short or long run. That's because this is a core part of this OS' design, and I'm really not interested in core design mistakes emerging in a few years if I can fix them now. Many thanks in advance.
Permalink for comment 474955
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Comment by Kaj-de-Vos
by Alfman on Sun 29th May 2011 19:17 UTC in reply to "Comment by Kaj-de-Vos"
Alfman
Member since:
2011-01-28

Kaj-de-Vos,

"Leaking of implementation details is detrimental to interfacing with other hardware architectures"

I understand all your initial criticisms, however I'm curious how an RPC interface leads to leaking of implementation details?

Corba interfaces are completely portable across many languages/platforms, including scripting languages.

Heck, just using corba itself would provide instant RPC compatibility with almost all serious languages out there.

If corba is too heavy weight to use in the OS, one could still provide an OS binding for it - that might even be a novel feature for the OS.

Reply Parent Score: 2