[DGD]Hello, think you could answer a few questiosn for me? :)

[Felix A. Croes]

Stephen Schmidt <schmidsj at union.edu> wrote:

> On Sun, 23 Apr 2000, Par Winzell wrote:
> > BladeDarkmour at aol.com writes:
> > > Aye, [state saving]'s one of the features of DGD that caught my
> > > eye.. Tis a requirement, and I prefer not to have to code support for
> > > it myself.
>  
> > You couldn't.
>
> Actually, even under MudOS, you can, because of the save_object()
> feature. The cost is that you can't use clones anymore; each object
> needs to have its own save file, so it has to have its own code
> file. (And, in fact, there's ways around that too, though not
> good ones.) You have to do some additional work to preserve
> environment information, and so forth, but it's doable.
>
> But it's way too hard when DGD is available with state saves
> as a driver feature.

Mimicing DGD's persistence (or, for that matter, any other persistent
mud server's persistence; it is only MudOS people who define the term
so sloppily) is not just hard in MudOS, it really is impossible.

The limitations you mention are limitations of current implementations
in the Nightmare and Lima mudlibs.  These are tradeoffs for simplicity
and have little to do with actual MudOS limitations.  There are many
more, including: datastructures shared between objects are not saved
as shared, self-referential datastructures cannot be saved at all,
neither can object references, etc.

The show-stopper with regard to persistence in MudOS is that it is
impossible to query the full state of any given object from LPC.

Regards,
Dworkin

List config page:  http://list.imaginary.com/mailman/listinfo/dgd