[MUD-Dev] Re: TECH: Distributed Muds

[Caliban Tiresias Darklock]

On Thu, 26 Apr 2001 23:07:21 -0700, J C Lawrence <claw at 2wire.com> wrote:

> I'd always thought that it was because that's been the basic model
> discussed in Stevens and Comer, and its also the simplest to
> incrementally develop and extend.

But Comer and Stevens are a bit out of date these days... poll() is so
much more efficient (as UNIX networkers continue to tell me OVER AND
OVER AND OVER AGAIN), and lends itself much more readily to
object-based code. Unfortunately, we don't have it in Winsock, and
comparable models there are terribly complex and very badly
documented. Since I want my code to work in both instances, I either
need to abstract my network code out into a Windows and UNIX
conditional compilation model, or drop back down to select().

> Small, simple, well constrained threads that perform well known and
> exactly defined tasks with clearly understood interfaces and
> contracts with the rest of the world.  I like that approach.  I'm
> not fond of the general purpose does-a-lot-of-things threading
> approach I see so often.

Agreed. Threads, IMHO, are supposed to do small and well-defined
things well so you can concentrate on the part of the code that's
doing big nebulous things badly. ;)

_______________________________________________
MUD-Dev mailing list
MUD-Dev at kanga.nu
https://www.kanga.nu/lists/listinfo/mud-dev