[MUD-Dev] Persistant storage.... My current idea.

Ben Greear greear at cyberhighway.net
Tue Apr 7 17:49:35 New Zealand Standard Time 1998


On Tue, 7 Apr 1998, J C Lawrence wrote:
> > Ummm, not sure I understand this.  It makes no sense to me.  My idea
> > is thus: You have a space ship, with cargo, and various objects on
> > board.  You go through a 'gate' to another server (solar system).
> > Every object within the ship leaves the previous one and joins the
> > latter.  The java classes of course do not move, and in fact are
> > found on ever server.
> 
> You are going to require that the class heirarchy on all servers match 
> perfectly?  If you don't then you have the problem of an object
> attempting to move to a server which may not have an indentical
> supporting class heirarchy.

This is what I plan to shoot for, but the basic communication between
client and server will be well defined, and open, packets.  I will build
classes that will automatically encode themselves into these packets,
and decode the packets into themselves, but there is nothing to stop
someone from writing their own...

> Are you preapared to require that all descendants of a class must be
> compliant with the latest version of that class, or are you going to
> have some sort of class versioning where instances are bound to a
> particular version of a defined class?

This will be pretty nasty for sure.  Every mobile object will have a
version integer, and I'll be able to check with that.  However, I hope
to have a better, more automatic system in place....  Haven't thought
about it too much yet..but auto-downloading .class files is not out of
the question..  Probably could work some magic with the ClassLoader or
something...

> Note that all cable modems are not equal.  Some use the cable fdor
> down trafic only, with a standard asynch modem for the up-traffic.
> Others are bidirectional on the cable, but are also massively
> asymetrical (I've seen as high as a 20:1 ratio between in and out
> bandwidth).  Lastly, for the bidirectional modems, in almost all cases
> you share your bandwidth with the other subscribers on the local loop,
> and some cable companies have been known to be stupid enough to use a
> /16 subnet...
> 
> Cable modems are not necessarily that great.  Check your local
> providers implementation.

Looks like both ADSL and the cable folks won't be here for a while.  The
telco says call back in a month..the cable guy said check back 3Q98.

Musta moved to the wrong block :P


Ben Greear (greear at cyberhighway.net)  http://www.primenet.com/~greear 
Author of ScryMUD:  mud.primenet.com 4444
http://www.primenet.com/~greear/ScryMUD/scry.html





More information about the MUD-Dev mailing list