[DGD] Design question about inheritance code

[Michael McKiel]

 --- Steve Wooster <swooster at xprt.net> wrote: 
>      I'm trying to think about how I want to code a daemon to keep tack of 
> inheritance trees, and there are a couple of ideas I came up with, for 
> which I'm trying to think of good/bad things about them...
> 
> 1. I'm thinking of making it so that a file can't be removed while an 
> object is loaded from it. If an object is loaded from it, you need to 
> destruct the object before you can remove the file. I figured this might be
> good for persistent muds, because it makes it impossible for a forgotten 
> object, "/path/dir/xyz.c" to be floating around, using up memory if it 
> doesn't exist in the file-system (I assume my mudlib is the only thing with
> access to the mud's directory).
> 

What about for object's compiled from a string it wouldn't have a source
file, and you'd remove it because it doesn't have a source file...?


> 2. This idea is a bit more iffy... perhaps when an object/lib/etc is 
> compiled, a copy of the source code is saved in memory somewhere. When a 
2 seems a lil over the top, and perhaps difficult to track properly.
I'm not sure if this suggestion is possible but in the event of a full
recompile that other admin's are unaware of - ya'd think it might be
mentioned ;) Couldn't the recompile code assign an object temp to a lib's
object, and if the compile fails, use 'temp' ?


______________________________________________________________________ 
Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca
_________________________________________________________________
List config page:  http://list.imaginary.com/mailman/listinfo/dgd