MOO-cows Mailing List Archive


Re: Verbing Properties

--- Adrian Irving-Beer wrote:
>>*  Programmers get DIRECT control over who and what accesses their
>>   as such, it would not be hard to implement a $lock_utils-like system for
>>   access priviledges. 
>Ummm, make a verb that returns the value of the prop (which is !r) and
>check there.

This means there is a standard for 'wrapper' verbs.  Remember, programmers
HAVE to use these wrappers, they are simply there if needed.  
#1._set_* and #1._get_* will simulate the behaviour of the current core.

>>*  Properties need not return static values.  For
>>   example #0.time  could return time() 
>Why?  $time can just as easily be $time() and do the same thing.  And
>there's time() :P

This was merely an example, more useful things like, say, .title, which 
eliminates the need for the .name/:title() kludge, or a .description prop
that includes .

>>*  Property access could be logged.
>Again, using the verb-that-returns idea.
>Just create some sort of :show_prop that shows it if the person has access.

This basically does that, but from the programmer's point of view, it has the
convenience of using " = baz;" instead of foo:reset_bar(baz).  Also,
under this system, LambdaCore could run with only the addition of the #1

>>   *  '' is replaced by 'foo:_get_bar()'
>>   *  ' = quack' is replaced by 'foo:_set_bar(quack)'
>>   *  property_info(foo, "bar") is replaced by 
>>      foo:_getinfo_bar() (returns {OWNER, PERMS})
>>   *  set_property_info(foo, "bar", {OWNER, PERMS}) is replaced by 
>>      foo:_setinfo_bar({OWNER, PERMS}).
>Why not just call these themselves?

So that LambdaCore will work.

>This may seem like a nasty response - but I'm just not sure exactly why
>you have to do this.  If you want verbs, use verbs.  If you want props,
>use props.  If you want multiple inheritance props that only the
>owner/co-owner(s) can see, make them !r with :show whatever verbs pointing
>to them, which check for permissions (and possibly log).

This basically does this while remaining Lambda-compatible.

>Although I see there would be some use to this, I really think that a
>system with programmers (and wizzen!) who understand the system and can
>program using the right verbs etc is better then taking out the entire
>property system.  

I'm not taking it out, it remains to hold data.  Just the access system 
has changed.

>I'm pretty sure it would
>be a BIG job to use verbs that tell you the props.

Not at all, just a server hack and a few verbs on #1, and voila.


Home | Subject Index | Thread Index