[DGD] Where did all the players go?

[Raymond Jennings]

Also, upgrades that involve inheritables take on a new spin when you
realize that an inheritable's clients usually have the discretion to
completely disinherit any library they see fit unless you have System
level code to forbid it.

The amount of cooperation you can rely on downstream in the
inheritance tree is something that needs to be carefully considered.

Add to this the existence of LWOs that you can't necessarily search
for if they're buried...

On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 5:50 AM, Raymond Jennings <shentino at gmail.com> wrote:
> ...sounds like a crafting ingredient.
>
> On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 5:49 AM, Blain <blain20 at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Asheron's Call! Can I borrow your smelly salts now, please?
>>
>> On Dec 13, 2017 07:45, "Felix A. Croes" <felix at dworkin.nl> wrote:
>>
>> bart at wotf.org wrote:
>>
>>> I think the discussion started from Dworkin's post about packaging DGD.
>>>
>>> As persistence is one of the key features of DGD, I'd think such a package
>>> should at the very least have a setup capable of 'full persistence'as per
>> what
>>> DGD considers full persistence.
>>
>> A container, not a package.  And it will not be something generic for
>> current DGD users; it will bundle a DGD binary with a mudlib for Asheron's
>> Call, both of them capable of self-upgrading without downtime using DGD's
>> persistence features.
>>
>> Smelling salts will be provided to revive LPmud aficionados.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Felix Croes
>> ____________________________________________
>> https://mail.dworkin.nl/mailman/listinfo/dgd
>> ____________________________________________
>> https://mail.dworkin.nl/mailman/listinfo/dgd