Re: exported.writes inside a hook threadlock?

On Mon, 12 Apr 2004 12:28:27 -0500 (CDT)
  will guaraldi <[email protected]> wrote:

>The serialization is fine--it's the order that's the 
>issue.  If I was a
>user, I'd want to see things happening when they were 
>happening, not get a
>notification long after the fact.
>
>Case in point, say we had the following events in the 
>queue:
>
>2. MudEvent:  Tomas kicks you.
>1. UserEvent: #action {%1 kicks you} {kick %1}
>
>
>We handle the UserEvent creating the action.  Then we 
>handle the MudEvent
>where the action gets triggered.  Would you rather the 
>output be like
>this (where the most recent output is at the bottom):
>
>"""
>Tomas kicks you.
>You kick Tomas.
>lyntin: action {%1 kicks you} {kick %1} added.
>"""

I'm not sure I got it right, but if we change all the 
direct spamming to scheduling, it going to be scheduled 
(and processed later) exactly in the same order as if it 
was spammed otherwise, isn't it?

1. UserEvent: action is added, SpamEvent1 is scheduled.
2. MudEvent: SpamEvent2 is scheduled.
3. SpamEvent1 is processed, output is performed.
4. SpamEvent2 is processed, output is performed.

It's more of theoretical interest, though.

--
Eugene
---
Professional hosting for everyone - http://www.host.ru


-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.Net email is sponsored by: IBM Linux Tutorials
Free Linux tutorial presented by Daniel Robbins, President and CEO of
GenToo technologies. Learn everything from fundamentals to system
administration.http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=1470&alloc_id=3638&op=click