Re: exported.writes inside a hook threadlock?
will guaraldi <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.games.mud.client.lyntin |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On Mon, 12 Apr 2004, Eugene wrote: > 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. > > 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. Oh--oops. You're right... Mmm... Yeah, we could change everything to an OutputEvent. How much bang for our buck would we get from that? Do you think it'd simplify anything? Would it affect startup adversely? /will ------------------------------------------------------- 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