[coyotos-dev] Endpoints and replies

[Jonathan S. Shapiro]

On Tue, 2006-01-17 at 09:52 -0800, Charles Landau wrote:

> There is a design option that eliminates case 2. The openness of the 
> wait could be a property of the endpoint. Most commonly, servers will 
> wait on open endpoints and callers will wait on closed endpoints. You 
> couldn't use the same endpoint for both purposes, but I don't see a 
> need for that.

I briefly considered this. It may be the right thing to do, but here is
why I currently think otherwise:

If the endpoint type is specialized in this way, it seems likely that
two checks need to be done in the invocation path: one on the endpoint
type and the other on the application-provided option bits for the
invocation. If a single endpoint type can semantically handle all cases,
and performs reasonably for the sensible cases, it seems preferable to
do one check rather than two.

However, this is a provisional opinion. Actually coding the path may
change my view on this.

shap