On Tue, 6 Apr 1999, George Greer wrote:
> I always thought this approach was a better one:
>
> http://developer.circlemud.org/patches/double.patch
> http://developer.circlemud.org/patches/double2.patch
>
Having just briefly read your patch it seems to check text being passed to
write_to_output and stack that...there are numerous problems and dangers
using this method...
1. write_to_output *drumm*rolls* yes, what business has a function
fiddling around with my text I'm passing to it, it should do what it's
supposed to and write_to_output as _I_ send it (no nannying me). Maybe
I've been taught to heavily in network and computer system designs about
layering, but it seems to me that the responsibility of the data in the
output is that of the function generating it, not the function used to
transport it. And it can also be said in the same breath, what if I don't
want some data stacked this way...
2. isn't this just a touch inefficeint, the only analogy I can think of
right now (4:20am) is it's like purifying a whole resevoirs worth of
water, to find out you only need a glass full. You generate all this data
to be sent out, allocating resources etc. for it, then it gets cut down at
the final hurdle on the way out of the machine, why waste the resources in
transit? Clearly for a more efficient design you would be better off not
generating so much to start with....
Anyway I'm begginning to ramble...
I think my point is from a sensible design point of view those patches are
a Bad Idea TM...
Colin Hassall - administrator/coder/Q - Starfleet MUD
telnet: starfleetmud.org 4000
+------------------------------------------------------------+
| Ensure that you have read the CircleMUD Mailing List FAQ: |
| http://qsilver.queensu.ca/~fletchra/Circle/list-faq.html |
+------------------------------------------------------------+
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 12/15/00 PST