[MUD-Dev] Re: TECH: Distributed Muds

shren shren at io.com
Tue May 15 16:22:18 New Zealand Standard Time 2001

On Tue, 15 May 2001 asnellin at san.rr.com wrote:

> Actually, it's more like a constant number of threads per
> connection, likely only one or two. But that's why I'm asking these
> questions -- would N*2 threads kill a system, even if intelligently
> managed? Even if 90% of them were blocking at any given point in
> time?
> Or more explicitly, is it impossible (or simply foolhardy) to
> attempt a heavily multithreaded design?

It's just unwise.  Threads, in my experience, should be used as tools
when you *need* two things to happen at once, and there's no other
clean way to do it, such as file and/or network IO, or sound.  I've
always felt they should be introduced to implement your design, and
not as "design elements" per se.

"I've acquired quite a taste, for a well-made mistake."
  - Fiona Apple, _A_Mistake_
"That pretty much sums up how I feel about Microsoft Windows."
  - shren at io.com

MUD-Dev mailing list
MUD-Dev at kanga.nu

More information about the MUD-Dev mailing list