Sending Info
Chris Holt ([email protected])
Tue, 14 Jun 1994 18:20:32 +0100 (BST)
> From: The Bagel-Meistro <[email protected]>
>
> Hi. It's time for me to add to the conversation.
> Currently there seems to be a debate of using a library of
> previously created shapes, or to send the info describing
> the construction of the object over the network. It is not
> inconceivable to do both.
> Using a portable, PHIGS or PHIGS+ sort of language, one
> could send out either a) a description of how to compose the
> shape from very primitive polygons, or b) send a name of
> a previously created and publicly created object. However,
> by sending the name, this just reduces the amount of info
> transmitted: it still could be defined using the same
> primitive polygons or built out of increasingly complex
> objects. The host computer would still have to process the
> same amount of information, but the drag from the amount
> of time the information takes to go from server to client
> would be reduced dramatically at sites that just sent the
> names of library objects, instead of the libraries
> themselves.
Quite so. The analogy I have in mind is sending fonts to a
printer; if they're already there, you don't have to download
them. Our objects are the equivalent of characters in various
fonts, I think.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[email protected] ftp://tuda.ncl.ac.uk/pub/local/ncmh1/nameplate.html
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I had rather be a dog and bay the moon, / Than such a cybernaut.