[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]

# Re: Server Question...

- Date: Thu, 28 Dec 1995 17:42:14 PST
- From:
- Cc: moo-cows@parc.xerox.com
- In-reply-to: "Nate Massey"'s message of "Thu, 28 Dec 1995 15:45:02 PST" <199512282345.AA013644302@ctdnet.acns.nwu.edu>

    Nate Massey writes:
    > Is there a reason why the server shouldn't parse input from an
    > unconnected player?

    Not really; the restriction has been in there (albeit in *quite* different
    form) since Ghond gave me the code back in 1990 and has simply been carried
    along ever since.  One advantage I can think of is that it ensures that
    disconnection will quickly and harmlessly clean up the leftover state; for
    example, if I'm horribly lagged, type some commands that I now no longer care
    about and simply disconnect, it may well be better if those commands are thrown
    away.  This is a pretty weak argument, though.  Anybody got a better one?

    > Also, is there any reason why the task id for #0:do_command() is
    > not the same as the task id of the verb run if #0:do_command() is
    > zero?

    No, not really.  I'll add this to alpha4.

    	  Pavel

References:

- Server Question...

- From: "Nate Massey" <natem@ctdnet.acns.nwu.edu>

- Prev: Server Question...
- Next: Setup Comments Please (newbie)
- Index: MOO-cows
- Thread: MOO-cows

Home | Subject Index | Thread Index