Re: [MUD-Dev] Object and class heirarchies -- are they really necessary?

[Kevin Littlejohn <darius#connect,com.au>]

>>> Par Winzell wrote
> J C Lawrence writes:
> 
>  > FWIW: Larry McVoy (BK author) is keen to see BK used as an embedded
>  > tool FWIW and has been conciously re-writing some of the APIs and
>  > access points to make it easier to embed.  I could easily see having 
>  > an external DB (ala MySQL, SOLID, (g/n/*)dbm, whatever) with the
>  > edit interfaces running thru BK for all object code changes...
> 
> This is very exciting! I spent some time searching the net for library
> implementions of RCS, but failed utterly. I was ready to call binaries
> for the revision control aspects of the Skotos development system, due
> for implementation in the weeks to come. I'll definitely take a closer
> look at BitKeeper when they do their source release.
> 

Ditto that - the idea of plugging something like BitKeeper into an
object-aware framework, allowing builders to check their objects in and
keep a record of changes, is kinda appealing.  Especially given some other
work with clients and xml-rpc and so forth we've got bubbling...  Treating
the engine as a centralised repository for all manner of objects gets really
interesting.

KevinL
(Darius wanders off, mumbling to himself)



_______________________________________________
MUD-Dev mailing list
MUD-Dev#kanga,nu
http://www.kanga.nu/lists/listinfo/mud-dev