Re: Server Question...

• Date: Thu, 28 Dec 1995 17:42:14 PST
• From:
  Pavel Curtis <pavel@parc.xerox.com>
• Cc: moo-cows@parc.xerox.com
• In-reply-to: "Nate Massey"'s message of "Thu, 28 Dec 1995 15:45:02 PST" <199512282345.AA013644302@ctdnet.acns.nwu.edu>

Nate Massey writes:
> Is there a reason why the server shouldn't parse input from an 
> unconnected player?

Not really; the restriction has been in there (albeit in *quite* different
form) since Ghond gave me the code back in 1990 and has simply been carried
along ever since.  One advantage I can think of is that it ensures that
disconnection will quickly and harmlessly clean up the leftover state; for
example, if I'm horribly lagged, type some commands that I now no longer care
about and simply disconnect, it may well be better if those commands are thrown
away.  This is a pretty weak argument, though.  Anybody got a better one?

> Also, is there any reason why the task id for #0:do_command() is
> not the same as the task id of the verb run if #0:do_command() is
> zero?

No, not really.  I'll add this to alpha4.

	  Pavel

• Server Question...
• From: "Nate Massey" <natem@ctdnet.acns.nwu.edu>

• Prev: Server Question...
• Next: Setup Comments Please (newbie)
• Index: MOO-cows
• Thread: MOO-cows