[DGD] Changing connect() (network package)

[bart at wotf.org]

Right, I'll have to teach my mailer to use the correct sender address when
sending stuff to the list.. retrying..

On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 14:02:35 -0800, Shentino wrote
> I'm actually been thinking of making a new version of the network
> package that plays nicer by using the extension interface, and that
> won't interfere with the "legacy" behavior of vanilla DGD.

That would be really nice, but I also would not know where to start with this.

The current network package is quite embedded in comm.c and connection.c in
order to add the functionality needed to user objects. I wonder if the
extension interface could be used to implement something similar. I'd imagine
it could at least be used for implementing the kfuns and get that part of the
network package out of the driver sources.

What I did yesterday is take a look at some older attempt at merging the
network package into dgd 1.2.105, and after a bit of fiddling, the connection
code works. I do however have some serious bug still in it (at least one..
haha) that shows as a sig11 during object destruction. Oh, and its still only
105, so would need some more work even when the bugs are fixed, and will
prolly need a fair amount of work to be kept uptodate. In that sense your idea
sounds a lot better.

That said.. it works far enough that I have a development copy of my mud
running on it with a working intermud 3 connection and a user logged in.. I
can crash it easily, but its a start... and I have a DGD 1.2.105 showing in
the mudlist :)

> 
> Haven't a clue how to do it, but using an interface specifically
> designed for such extensions methinks cross-version compatibility 
> will be better. :/
> 
> On Dec 9, 2007 9:58 AM,  <bart at wotf.org> wrote:
> > On Sun, 9 Dec 2007 17:51:40 +0100, Petter Nyström wrote
> > > While you are familiarizing yourself with the network code, you
> > > should re-write it to work with the latest branch of DGD! I know I
> > > am not the only one that would be interested in playing with it then.
> >
> > Hehe, I had expected that comment. I have looked at it a few times and have
> > been talking about it with some people on intermud 3, and it looks like a way
> > more complez task then the changes I made.
> >
> > I may look at it sometime, but don't hold your breath. For now I have a lot of
> > code that runs well on 1.2p4 and not much of a need to move away from it
(yet?).
> >
> > Bart.
> >
> >
> > --
> > Created with Open WebMail at http://www.bartsplace.net/
> > Read my weblog at http://soapbox.bartsplace.net/
> >
> > ___________________________________________
> > https://mail.dworkin.nl/mailman/listinfo/dgd
> >
> 
> ___________________________________________
> https://mail.dworkin.nl/mailman/listinfo/dgd

--
Created with Open WebMail at http://www.bartsplace.net/
Read my weblog at http://soapbox.bartsplace.net/