[DGD]statedumping

[Felix A. Croes]

Stephen Schmidt <schmidsj at union.edu> wrote:

> On Wed, 10 May 2000, E. Harte wrote:
> > I'd say that DGD makes it very easy for a
> > developer to track objects and make sure the basis is airtight when it
> > comes to leaking objects.
>
> Is it easier in DGD than in, say, MudOS? After all, you can
> use simul_efuns() to override load_object() and clone_object()
> in MudOS if you want to implement such a thing. I've never
> tried it, so maybe there's something I haven't observed.

Definitely easier.  The simul_efun feature can replace functions in
the auto object, but not variables in the auto object -- which make
per-wizard linked lists of objects possible.


>[...]
> > In a decent mudlib you'd have limitations in place that
> > avoid an object going berzerk and creating clones or adding call_outs
> > until the mud crashes.
>
> Most publically available mudlibs don't live up to this
> standard, unfortunately, though I agree that it would be
> good if they did.

If you base your mudlib on the kernel lib, such resource control
is automatic.  You can even define your own resources.  You could,
for instance, create a money resource and use it to impose limits
on how much money a wizard can give out.

Regards,
Dworkin

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