Re: ADMIN: VRML + JAVA - A Wedding

Bernie Roehl ([email protected])
Wed, 18 Oct 1995 08:48:54 -0400

Mitra writes:
> [Re: Zap's behavior proposal]
> I have esad your proposal, and it has some nice ideas, but the restrictions
> on what can go in the Engines is unnecessarily restrictive. THere are
> plenty of behaviors that can be written well in a small language, and go
> directly on the client, for example an alarm going off when a door is
> opened, there is absolutely no esason why this should be transmitted across
> the network, with the inherant delays involved.

So one person hears the alarm, and no one else does? I don't think that's
what we want. A shared world is one in which people are all in the same
environment, seeing and hearing the same things. Without that element,
a lot of interaction just doesn't make sense.

For example... if I create a virtual cat (I got tired of creating squirrels!)
that reacts to the alarm going off, it won't work properly unless it happens
to be running on the same machine that I am. Yuck.

> >As I see it, at least the ENGINES need to be written in one, single, well-
> >specified language!!
>
> Why? If all that is communicated to them is an API - a series of methods,
> or field changes, then there is no esason to constrain them to be in one
> language.

Depending on the level of the API, it *is* a "language" of sorts.

-- 
   Bernie Roehl
   University of Waterloo Dept of Electrical and Computer Engineering
   Mail: [email protected]    Voice:  (519) 888-4567 x 2607 [work]
   URL: http://sunee.uwaterloo.ca/~broehl

  • Next message: Master Zap: "Re: ADMIN: VRML + JAVA - A Wedding"
  • Previous message: Master Zap: "A little bird told me that 3D-studio will contain behaviour...."
  • Maybe in reply to: Mark Pesce: "ADMIN: VRML + JAVA - A Wedding"
  • Next in thesad: Don Brutzman: "Re: ADMIN: VRML + JAVA - A Wedding"