[522] in Coldmud discussion meeting

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


daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Sat Nov 5 00:29:56 1994 )

From: deforest@netcom.com (Robert de Forest)
To: coldstuff@MIT.EDU
Date: Fri, 4 Nov 1994 21:29:00 -0800 (PST)

My responses to things I just read, no particular order, yadda, yadda. :)

The dbm bugs was in fact experienced under Linux.

Some have experienced (primarily under linux) a hanging problem. Server just
 sticks. No IO is processed, ps says process is sleeping. Seems to be a
 problem with select() itself. (according to what I overheard)

I don't want the assignment operator changed because I am not convinced that
 having it be '=' poses a problem. I would like to see assignment be an
 expression so that the developers may decide what 'good code' is. I
 aprove of the do <statement> while (<test>) <statement> change.

I am for adding a seconds limit, but against a per-task tick limit.

I am for allowing the db to manipulate the second and tick limits.

I am (sorta) for making ticking out become an auto pause().

I am for request_callback() but against removing pause() because pause() makes
 it easier to cope with loops you are sure will go for a while. (as in a
 db-search function, see @grep at the FA site at sequoia.picosof.com)

I like the builtin-binding thing but would prefer that bound functions
 automatically send that message to the object they are bound to when used
 by other objects, as done in LambdaMOO. For those not familiar with this
 change, it would mean that binding db_top() to $data would cause the
 execution of db_top() by an object other than $data to be interpreted
 identically to $data.db_top().

I would like to see the IO interface modified as recomended but also unified
 such that the interface is identical not including the parameters passed in
 the interface functions/methods. Er...
If .parse is called for connections it shoudl be for pipes as well. Perhaps
 we are talking about even more profound changes such as renaming .parse to
 .recive_pipe_data(source, data) where source is 'pipe_stdout, 'pipe_sterr,
 'connection, 'file, etc. Or do we want to allow multiple bindings at all?
 Handles? I don't know. :)

I like the idea of allowing the reciving object to catch ~methodnf before the
 calling object, and I don't really care how it is implemented, wihtin reason.
 This would make writing a distributed db type thing VERY easy. I guess that's
 what Riche was saying. :)

textdump format changes - How about 'static' for var? 'parameter'? 'property'?

I just remebered a sort of bug/feature that makes hanging the server not so 
 hard to do. It goes like this: catch ~max_depth with a recursive handler. I
 forget the details and when I did this I ended up getting SEGV because I was
 passing a string back in error_str() and adding to it and it got bigger than
 4meg or whatever the maximum size of a string is. DUnno what to recommend if

Would like the bind_function capability to be extended to make binding server
 throws possible (for debugging purposes). I might want to
 bind_function('throw, $error, [~varnf]) before running a particular section
 of code and have $error.throw() suspend the task that caused the throw and
 notify the programmer that a broken task is waiting for inspection. Could
 even bind_function('throw, $method_redirector, [~methodnf])...

And if you bound throw() and ran across one on an object other than what it was
 bound to the result could be either a return or an actual throw based on the
 handler's .throw method :)

I am definetly in favor of local as a method flag (formerly known as private).

That's all I can think of right now.

Thanks, Riche, for taking over development. Your todo/discussion list looks
 encouraging. :)

Crag / Robert