[MUD-Dev] Re: TECH: Distributed Muds

Chris Gray cg at ami-cg.GraySage.COM
Fri Apr 27 19:38:32 New Zealand Standard Time 2001

> From: J C Lawrence <claw at 2wire.com>

> Chris Gray <cg at 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 at ami-cg.GraySage.COM
MUD-Dev mailing list
MUD-Dev at kanga.nu

More information about the MUD-Dev mailing list