Register forum user name Search FAQ

Gammon Forum

Notice: Any messages purporting to come from this site telling you that your password has expired, or that you need to verify your details, confirm your email, resolve issues, making threats, or asking for money, are spam. We do not email users with any such messages. If you have lost your password you can obtain a new one by using the password reset link.

Due to spam on this forum, all posts now need moderator approval.

 Entire forum ➜ SMAUG ➜ SMAUG coding ➜ Command stacking
Command stacking

It is now over 60 days since the last post. This thread is closed.     Refresh page

Posted by Greven   Canada  (835 posts)  Bio
Date Sat 13 Nov 2004 09:12 PM (UTC)
Message
Between me and a few people talking, we brought up the idea of being able to clear stacked commands on a SMAUG ( well, SWR, but for these purposes, same thing ). Now, as I follow the process, this happens: A person sends a command from their client to the host machine. This machine, using port info, routes it to the open file descriptor associated with the processes PID. When the mud reaches the point where it checks for new commands, it will try to read in from the appropriate file descriptor. If there is nothing there, it doesn't do anything, like the character was idling. If there is something there, then it read it in and adds it into d->inbuf, where it can later be processed by interpret.

Now, most of this that I cam going off of if in read_from_descriptor. The tricky part, I think, is that the mud checks if there is a pending command to finish before reading in the next one. So, for example, if their last command hasn't finished, because of a wait state for example, it will not read in from the file descriptor. No, I understand that this probably was intended to stop overflows of buffers, which makes sense.

Now, if someone has a wait state, for example, they can stack multiple commands, and these stay in the file descriptor, not the mud. So, what we want to do is check if a specific phrase has been entered ( "clear" by its self, for example ), and if so, flush the file descriptors buffer.

We have thought of a few ways, but not sure if/how they would work properly. One was to read everything in all at once, check through it for the clear command, and if its not there, write it all back, stripping off the begining line, of course, as this is the next command. If it is there, then just dispose of all of the infomation, effectively flushing it.

Another thought was to use fseek, or something similiar, to try to find the phrase, and use rewind to put it back if its not found, or everything after it is found.

Any thoughts, or maybe something like this has been done, and a lot more simply than described above?
Nobody ever expects the spanish inquisition!

darkwarriors.net:4848
http://darkwarriors.net
Top
Posted by Nick Gammon   Australia  (23,140 posts)  Bio   Forum Administrator
Date Reply #1 on Sat 13 Nov 2004 10:54 PM (UTC)
Message
I strongly doubt you can "put it back" into a TCP/IP connection. It wouldn't make much sense to allow that.

Your other approach may work. Without looking at the exact code, what it must do is break up the incoming text stream into commands, basically delimited by a newline. When a newline arrives (which it might not in a particular packet) that command can be processed and the rest kept for next time.

What you could do is, rather than processing each command as you reach a newline, is make a list of them (a linked list say). You may well have an unfinished one at the end of this list (ie. no terminating newline).

Then walk the list looking for "clear" and if you find it, discard everything up to and including the "clear" and then repeat the process in case they did "clear" twice. Finally take what is left and start feeding them through the command interpreter.

Of course, you need to allow for, next time through, this list may be non-empty.

I think the flowchart would be roughly:


  1. Take input from the MUD, if there is a newline, you have a command. Add this command to the pending commands list.

  2. Repeat the above step until no more newlines are in the input stream.

  3. Now examine the command list (this may have left-over commands from a previous time through this). Probably the simplest thing would be to go through it *backwards* looking for "clear". If found, delete everything in the list prior to, and including, the "clear" command. By going backwards you get the most recent "clear".

  4. With whatever commands are left over, take the first one and process it. (The others will be done next time through the loop).
- Nick Gammon

www.gammon.com.au, www.mushclient.com
Top
Posted by Spike   (27 posts)  Bio
Date Reply #2 on Sun 14 Nov 2004 04:28 AM (UTC)
Message
I was very intrested in this, but couldnt think of a good way to do it. If you guys work somthing up it'd be much appreciated if you post it up.



Spike
Top

The dates and times for posts above are shown in Universal Co-ordinated Time (UTC).

To show them in your local time you can join the forum, and then set the 'time correction' field in your profile to the number of hours difference between your location and UTC time.

12,165 views.

It is now over 60 days since the last post. This thread is closed.     Refresh page

Go to topic:           Search the forum

[Go to top] top

Information and images on this site are licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Australia License unless stated otherwise.

Home