MOO-cows Mailing List Archive
[SERVER] re: Production release 1.8.0 of the LambdaMOO server
Date: Wed, 13 Mar 1996 07:38:28 PST
From: ThwartedEfforts <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
At one time, I started to do a server patch to add the :bf_* functionality,
and my implementation includes what Roger Crew mentions, altho I didn't
explain it like that in the message I sent in response to Judy's mention of
it. The original intent was to overload all bf calls with MOO code, altho I
explained it as:
>1) if a builtin is called from SYSTEM_OBJECT, then wiz-only permission checks
> (via $server_options) don't take place. This would make it easier to have
> the server check permissions for an action instead of trying to do it in
> MOOcode. In other words:
Yes, I said 'wiz-only permissions checks don't take place', which is not how
I meant it.
Also, I said:
>2) That the verb on SYSTEM_OBJECT that is called be named "bf_" + the name
> of the builtin, to better distinguish between verbs that are handlers for
> builtin functions and those that are server verbs (ie do_login_command).
> Perhaps "secure_" + builtin name to signify that it's only called when
> a $server_options perm check fails.
> This also keeps #0:recycle for it's intended purpose.
Yes, there's the line 'to signify that it's only called when a
$server_options perm check fails", which is another misunderstanding/typo.
If you were working from my summary post as to what this feature would be,
Pavel, I'm sorry for the confusion.
Roger Crew has made a good point, and he's totally correct as to how the
operation of this feature should be.
Subject Index |