[MUD-Dev] Re: atomic functions

[J C Lawrence <claw#under,engr.sgi.com>]

On Sun, 3 May 1998 19:43:41 +0200 (MET DST) 
Felix A Croes<felix#xs1,simplex.nl> wrote:

> In your system, isn't it also necessary to check the state of
> successor events?  For example: event A schedules event B, and then
> fails.  Event B is started and succeeds.  Event A is restarted,
> schedules event B again, and succeeds.  Event B is started and
> succeeds.  Now event A has completed once, but successor event B has
> completed twice, even though B can only be scheduled by A.

My handling is that Event A logs B, and B is only passed to the
process system IF A C&C's successfully.  If A doesn't C&C, then the
log of B of course doesn't exist as it would have been created by
something that doesn't exist etc.

I find its quite common for my code to be logging follow up
(daisy-chain) events.

> Also, doesn't this imply that when A schedules B, it cannot pass
> along data to B?  After all, that data has been prepared by an event
> that may turn out not to have existed.

Precisely.

> This looks like a very chaotic system to me.  What are the
> advantages that make you prefer it?

Not merely chaotic, but impossible to guarantee either logical state
or logical consistency.

-- 
J C Lawrence                               Internet: claw#null,net
(Contractor)                               Internet: coder#ibm,net
---------(*)                     Internet: claw#under,engr.sgi.com
...Honourary Member of Clan McFud -- Teamer's Avenging Monolith...

-- 
MUD-Dev: Advancing an unrealised future.