|File I/O patches||lu...@dashjr.org||11/3/11 5:43 PM|
I've cleaned up File I/O a bit. Since you seem to be the new de facto
maintainer, I thought it would be a good idea to send you the patches.
You *should* be able to apply these to your Stunt with 'git am <x>.patch', but
there might be some non-trivial merging necessary.
I also noticed your Stunt branch is not based on/cloned from the main
|Re: File I/O patches||lu...@dashjr.org||11/3/11 5:51 PM|
On Thursday, November 03, 2011 8:43:55 PM Luke-Jr wrote:
Oops, attached an OLD VERSION of the 0003 patch. Current one attached.
|Re: File I/O patches||Todd Sundsted||11/3/11 6:09 PM|
I started with the latest code on SourceForge because I was not sure
of the status of the LambdaMoo project on GitHub. At one point I
diff'd the latest of both and convinced myself that they were
identical -- though the commits/revisions do not line up between the
Git/SVN repos -- I don't know what's up with that. In hindsight it
was probably not the way to go...
|Re: [MOO-talk] Re: File I/O patches||lu...@dashjr.org||11/3/11 7:03 PM|
On Thursday, November 03, 2011 9:09:02 PM Todd Sundsted wrote:
Any chance you'd be interested in recreating your Stunt branch the "right
https://github.com/wrog/lambdamoo/network is looking pretty :)
|Re: File I/O patches||Todd Sundsted||11/10/11 10:10 AM|
If wrog or someone would tag and release 1.8.4 I'd do so in a minute,
especially if it were the Github version that were so blessed.
|Re: File I/O patches||Todd Sundsted||11/10/11 10:12 AM|
I see your point, however.
|Re: [MOO-talk] Re: File I/O patches||lu...@dashjr.org||11/10/11 10:43 AM|
On Thursday, November 10, 2011 1:10:57 PM Todd Sundsted wrote:
The GitHub version (unfortunately-- I wish it were Gitorious) *is* by wrog.
Note that I don't mean rebasing your code on the latest master. All bugfixes
Examples in GammaMOO branches:
|Re: File I/O patches||Todd Sundsted||11/10/11 1:10 PM|
Someone declaring "version 1.8.4" would clarify for me where the
future of LambdaMOO is (if there is going to be a future) and who's
driving the bus. That's not the _only_ reason I'd re-release my
branch, but it would be the strongest incentive.
Interestingly, I based my version off the latest commits in
sourceforge, which were also by wrog and add up to the same final
state as those on Github, even though the commits themselves differ.
|Re: [MOO-talk] Re: File I/O patches||Paulo A Ferreira||11/15/11 2:44 AM|
As you are all talking about patches and future :-) I just want a way
that in #0:do_login_command I can open a network connection to an
external authentication system. As 1.8.3 if I used a read() even for
this other external connection it doesn't associate the player
connection with the player object returned.
Thanks in advance ;-)
|Re: [MOO-talk] Re: File I/O patches||lu...@dashjr.org||11/15/11 6:59 AM|
On Tuesday, November 15, 2011 5:44:36 AM Paulo A Ferreira wrote:
Workaround: store the negative-connection-number and authentication token in a
|Re: File I/O patches||Todd Sundsted||11/15/11 3:31 PM|
Any command which suspends the login task effectively foils the
association of a player with the connection. Internally, the verb
"returns" control back to the server with the read/suspend. It would
be possible to identify which task was created, and do the work when
it exits, but it would not be trivial. I had the same problem but
opted to add a built-in that effectively accomplished the same thing.
|Re: [MOO-talk] Re: File I/O patches||lu...@dashjr.org||11/15/11 3:37 PM|
On Tuesday, November 15, 2011 6:31:31 PM Todd Sundsted wrote:
Old GammaMOO had a function to reconnect a player (ie #-4 to #2, or even #2 to
|Re: File I/O patches||Todd Sundsted||11/15/11 3:43 PM|
The latest code for Stunt includes a builtin called
`switch_player()'. It explicitly associates a connection with a
player object. I started with an existing patch (props shortly) and
made a few modifications. Some version of this will absolutely be
part of Stunt, but right now it's *experimental* only -- there may be
risks to using this that I don't see.
|Re: File I/O patches||Todd Sundsted||11/15/11 4:18 PM|
And the starting point for the builtin was:
Props to Ryan Smith.
|Re: [MOO-talk] Re: File I/O patches||Steve Wainstead||11/27/11 4:53 PM|
On that note, I've been thinking of volunteering to maintain File I/O (if Todd is not interested).
I'd set up a new repository for it on github (and gitorious, as demand warrants), start with 1.5p1 (the last version, according to the previous maintainer, Andy Bakun; I traded emails with him back in June) and apply the patches so there's an audit trail in git.
I think my small contribution would be example usages of all methods, since I had to puzzle it out myself a while back and I took notes.
|Re: [MOO-talk] Re: File I/O patches||lu...@dashjr.org||11/27/11 5:10 PM|
On Sunday, November 27, 2011 7:53:01 PM Steve Wainstead wrote:
I consider Todd to be the de facto File I/O maintainer at the moment.
> I'd set up a new repository for it on github (and gitorious, as demand
I've already done a proper git import of File I/O (including splitting the
These are all merged into GammaMOO:
|Re: File I/O patches||Todd Sundsted||11/27/11 8:06 PM|
I have no problem at all with handing over the reins. The more people
actively involved and coding, the better the environment will be for
all of us IMHO. Steve, if you do take up maintenance, take a look at
what Luke-Jr has done -- I'd planned on rolling most/all of it in.
Other than bug fixing, I don't plan on extending it further right now
(although I'd love to make the whole thing non-blocking at some point
down the road).
|Re: [MOO-talk] Re: File I/O patches||lu...@dashjr.org||11/27/11 8:08 PM|
On Sunday, November 27, 2011 11:06:03 PM Todd Sundsted wrote:
On that note, it might be interesting to allow opening files as MOO sockets
|Re: [MOO-talk] Re: File I/O patches||Steve Wainstead||11/27/11 8:24 PM|
It was Luke's patches that reignited my interest in doing the maintenance! I will certainly include them.
I'll post when I have the thing up.
|Re: [MOO-talk] Re: File I/O patches||lu...@dashjr.org||11/27/11 9:29 PM|
On Sunday, November 27, 2011 11:24:18 PM Steve Wainstead wrote:
I would encourage just branching from my fileio_logger branch:
|Re: [MOO-talk] Re: File I/O patches||Paulo A Ferreira||11/29/11 7:49 AM|