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

# Re: [SERVER] ALPHA release

- Date: Fri, 29 Sep 1995 08:48:24 PDT
- From:
- Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

    Michael Brundage <anomaly@u.washington.edu> wrote:
    >>>   the current verb's owner (really, the current task perms) is already at or
    >>>   above their task limit; if so, E_QUOTA is raised instead of either forking
    >>>   or suspending.  Reading tasks are not affected by the task limit.
    >>
    >> How about making it different for every programmer?
    >> I guess $server_utils.user_byte_quota wouldn't be a good idea, right? :)
    >> How about checking whether the task perms are valid, if so, whether the
    >> object defines a .user_task_limit, and if this is a non-negative number,
    >> use that as task limit? Otherwise, use $server_options.user_task_limit.
    >> I can imagine where giving more tasks to $hacker (or somesuch) might be
    >> handy, without needing to make it a wizard instead. ;)
    >
    >An easier thing to implement might be to simply have it access a verb in the
    >DB, instead of a fixed property, say $server_options:byte_quota(user) and
    >$server_options:task_limit(user, and whatever, so the database could decide

    Very true. My suggestion was mainly phrased in similarity with the object
    quota system.

    >whether to return a different limit for programmers, or wizards, or users,
    >or just certain exceptional users, or whatever.  The same thing could also

    Of course, you'd need to keep a list of exceptional users somewhere.
    The question is how much task quota would vary from user to user. Pavel's
    settings enforce almost none. My suggestion was for making it the wildest.
    I guess yours is better - make the server call a verb, let the db decide
    whether a prop is needed.

    >be said for all the other properties the server accesses (maybe you want
    >your DB to checkpoint more frequently at night than during the day, or
    >vice-versa; currently you'd have to have a forked task running
    >to alter $dump_interval, but if the server called #0:dump_interval, you
    >could just write code that would do the timing for you).  Etc., etc.,

    You could make #0:checkpoint_started do the job as well; no need for a
    forked task.
    In fact, I think $dump_interval should be moved to
    $server_options.dump_interval, for consistency's sake... and maybe some
    server verb calls should be on this object as well.

    -------------------------------------------------------------
    Gustavo Glusman               Founder/administrator of BioMOO
    -- Gustavo@bioinformatics.weizmann.ac.il
    -- http://bioinformatics.weizmann.ac.il:70/0h/Gustavo/Glusman
    -- BioMOO: telnet bioinformatics.weizmann.ac.il 8888
               WWW:   http://bioinfo.weizmann.ac.il:8888

- Prev: Re: [SERVER, SECURITY] bug in set_task_perms() ?
- Next: Re: [SERVER] ALPHA release of LambdaMOO server 1.7.9
- Index: MOO-cows
- Thread: MOO-cows

Home | Subject Index | Thread Index