[DGD] Utility/helper functions: inherit vs call

[bart at wotf.org]

I think the idea of putting utility functions in daemons instead of
inheritables even when they have no need for centralized data is at least in
part a result of the difficulty of replacing all instances of an inheritable
on traditional lpmuds.

While this is no longer an issue on a modern dgd lib, its still more involved,
and more error prone, put differently, for functionality that is critical for
compiling inheritables and objects it may make sense to centralize those (and
provide for a way to have the kernel recompile those even when your 'shell' or
compile 'command' is broken, but beyond that, putting utility functions in
inheritables reduces overhead, and isn't costing much in the sense of
duplication (you lose a few bytes on an extra inheritable). It may also be
friendlier on hydra if that is a concern for your lib.

Bart.

On Mon, 19 Nov 2018 16:51:54 -0800, Raymond Jennings wrote
> For the time being I've chosen to prefer inheritables to daemons 
> when no data is being stashed centrally.
> 
> It's nice having compile time checking in place to make sure the needed
> functions still exist and are being called properly.  Finding this 
> out at runtime past a call_other barrier isn't fun.
> 
> On Wed, Nov 7, 2018 at 2:48 AM Raymond Jennings <shentino at gmail.com> 
> wrote:
> 
> > So, I'm curious what the pros and cons are of having utility/helper
> > functions inherited from a library, and kept in a utility daemon
> > accessed with call_other.
> >
> ____________________________________________
> https://mail.dworkin.nl/mailman/listinfo/dgd


--
https://www.bartsplace.net/
https://wotf.org/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/mrobjective/