[MUD-Dev] Re: Why modules? (Was: Inheritable modules)

[Jon A. Lambert]

On 31 Oct 98, Vadim Tkachenko wrote:
>
> One of other threads discussed the drawbacks of the downtime. From my
> standpoint, this is exactly it: the point of having the dynamic loading
> is to eliminate the downtime.
> 
> It's a Windows world concept (don't start a religious war here, please)
> that you have to reboot as soon as you do anything more offensive than
> renaming a file. With a proper design (note, done once) it's possible to
> dynaload everything else up to dynaloader code, then you don't need to
> shut down the server to upgrade.

Damn and I was trying to defend it because it was the longtime 
preferred approach to "applications" on my platform of choice. 
Of course, this is nothing really new or complicated for us borg.  
It's also happens to be a staple feature in the mainframe world where 
any sort of downtime is rather costly.  There a quite a few operating 
systems that don't like you renaming files they are currently using.  
There is a reason, though debate on the topic here is moot.  

Suffice it to say we do agree on the dynamic load concept. 

--
--/*\ Jon A. Lambert - TychoMUD     Internet:jlsysinc at ix.netcom.com /*\--
--/*\ Mud Server Developer's Page <http://www.netcom.com/~jlsysinc> /*\--
--/*\   "Everything that deceives may be said to enchant" - Plato   /*\--