[267] in Coldmud discussion meeting

root meeting help first previous next next in chain last in chain last

fork() and log()

daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Thu May 19 15:03:30 1994 )

From: deforest@netcom.com (Robert de Forest)
To: coldstuff@MIT.EDU
Date: Thu, 19 May 1994 11:52:41 -0700 (PDT)

Colin has briefly touched on ideas he has for the future. One such idea is
 non-cooperative multi-tasking (like unix and the Amiga), which would mean
 some new things like semaphores of some kind. I immagine there would have
 to be a fork() of some sort if nothing less than $task.spawn().go(). :)

I do not speak for colin, of course, but this is the official rumor.

As for log(), Lynx proposes a cospetic change which I have no objection to,
 though I would prefer to take the date and time out completely. The only
 problem with this is that log() in its current state suits a purpose that
 requires that it include this information. If it were left up to the db
 to supply the info it could be written out or something.

Acutally, I fully endorse the idea of removing the time and > from log()
 entries and leaving up to $sys.log(). This would also mean you could put
 $string.from_value(sender()) in the entry or something. This change strikes
 me as similiar in nature to the change in version 11 to traceback(), where
 printing the traceback is a task left up to the programmer. Likewise, log()
 might as well leave it up to the programmer to supply a meaningful/useful
 log entry.

I doubt there's much to the change, prolly one or two lines in log.c. In fact,
 I was under the impression that Lynx had already made this change in his
 version of the server.

Crag / Robert de Forest