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.
Thread beginning with comment 475095
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[9]: Comment by Kaj-de-Vos
by Kaj-de-Vos on Mon 30th May 2011 14:17 UTC in reply to "RE[8]: Comment by Kaj-de-Vos"
Kaj-de-Vos
Member since:
2010-06-09

Sorry, I've already made that last example too complex. It's very easy to fall into that trap. Because we defined a command type, the data stream is self-synchronising: if an interface has consumed all the parameters it understands, it can simply skip forward to the next command. So there is strictly no need to define a parameter number or list in this example. Still, they're useful constructs to solve other issues.

Reply Parent Score: 1