[Home] [Groups] - Message: [Prev in Group] [Next in Group]
19063: Re: [MUD-Dev] Re: TECH: Distributed Muds
[Full Header] [Plain Text]
From: Chris Gray <cg@ami-cg.GraySage.COM>
Newsgroups: nu.kanga.list.mud-dev
Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2001 19:38:32 -0600
Organization: Kanga.Nu
> From: J C Lawrence <claw@2wire.com>
> Chris Gray <cg@ami-cg.GraySage.COM> wrote:
>> One word: timeouts.
> Bah.
:-)
> Given a soft code system and other wise single threaded system
> timeouts mean that I must either enforce nasty time limits on
> softcode execution, or I must build full stack fault support into
> the soft language supports such that I can push the soft context, go
> do an IO loop, and then return to my soft context. No thanks. The
> model of decoupling IO, softcode execution, etc is too damn simple
> and clean to bother trying to munge them back together.
OK, sure, if you have that model to start with, but if you are just
starting with a select() loop, putting timeouts on softcode execution
is a reasonable thing to do.
In any case, do you really want to have no limit on softcode
execution? No matter how many threads you give to your execution
system, if the bad softcode is hit enough, you are still in
trouble. Not only in the CPU usage, but possibly also in the memory
tied up and maybe even locks held.
--
Don't design inefficiency in - it'll happen in the implementation.
Chris Gray cg@ami-cg.GraySage.COM
http://www.GraySage.COM/cg/
_______________________________________________
MUD-Dev mailing list
MUD-Dev@kanga.nu
https://www.kanga.nu/lists/listinfo/mud-dev