[MUD-Dev] Databases (was Re: Commercial-use Restrictions on Code Bases)

Charles Hughes charles.hughes at bigfoot.com
Sat Jan 15 17:06:02 New Zealand Daylight Time 2000


On Friday, January 14, 2000 11:29 PM, J C Lawrence [SMTP:claw at kanga.nu] 
wrote:
> Assuming the code actually works, there is a gang of people here at
> Cambridge threatening to write all the other bits. The division we see
> is roughly: socket code, database/memory management, parser, game
> mechanics.
> I expect the game mechanics stuff not to be under the LGPL, unlike the
> other bits. What's more important than the bits themselves is the
> interface between them. In particular, I think the best approach would be
> to see what can be taken OUT of a mud (socket stuff, database management)
> and separating that, rather than imposing some a priori design structure
> on the whole thing and then finding that it doesn't work (e.g., the way
> someone might want to implement an internal MUD language might cut
> across both parser and game mechanics...))

At the risk of being slapped by a mackerel, who here really thinks they
can do a better database design than those afforded by the likes of the
free or commercial databases?  [I'll ask those here who've actually
worked on these databases not to chime in. :)]

It seems to me that segregating the database issues and then simply using
a database is far better than creating a new one.  This would change
the "databases/memory management" division above into two divisions -
database usage, memory management.

Yes? No?




_______________________________________________
MUD-Dev maillist  -  MUD-Dev at kanga.nu
http://www.kanga.nu/lists/listinfo/mud-dev



More information about the MUD-Dev mailing list