[MUD-Dev] Re: atomic functions
J C Lawrence
claw at under.engr.sgi.com
Wed May 6 15:25:28 New Zealand Standard Time 1998
On Sun, 3 May 1998 19:43:41 +0200 (MET DST)
Felix A Croes<felix at xs1.simplex.nl> wrote:
> In your system, isn't it also necessary to check the state of
> successor events? For example: event A schedules event B, and then
> fails. Event B is started and succeeds. Event A is restarted,
> schedules event B again, and succeeds. Event B is started and
> succeeds. Now event A has completed once, but successor event B has
> completed twice, even though B can only be scheduled by A.
My handling is that Event A logs B, and B is only passed to the
process system IF A C&C's successfully. If A doesn't C&C, then the
log of B of course doesn't exist as it would have been created by
something that doesn't exist etc.
I find its quite common for my code to be logging follow up
> Also, doesn't this imply that when A schedules B, it cannot pass
> along data to B? After all, that data has been prepared by an event
> that may turn out not to have existed.
> This looks like a very chaotic system to me. What are the
> advantages that make you prefer it?
Not merely chaotic, but impossible to guarantee either logical state
or logical consistency.
J C Lawrence Internet: claw at null.net
(Contractor) Internet: coder at ibm.net
---------(*) Internet: claw at under.engr.sgi.com
...Honourary Member of Clan McFud -- Teamer's Avenging Monolith...
MUD-Dev: Advancing an unrealised future.
More information about the MUD-Dev