> No, you've misunderstood me here. The assumptions are: the windmill
> rotates deterministically. We don't have to ship messages around the
> network telling everyone where the windmill is, since every machine
> can independently calculate this. However, someone walking around is
> nondeterministic. We do have to ship these messages around. When I
> get the message that you've walked into the windmill, I'll deal with
> this in the same way that everyone else does -- calling some local
> windmill code to figure out if it broke or not, etc. This is the
> graceful method.
But this doesn't guarantee that the results are the same!? What if lag
caused me to miss the windmill from some peoples perspective? You can't have
the decition if the windmill hit me (and if the windmill beoke) on each host
. And besides, this is a one-shot test, it's just a few bytes either way, so
why not let it surf the net and we get a CLEAR and UNIFORM ruling on what
happened!?
> Now, let's say this windmill is particularly important.
Duh.... what objects are NOT important? IMHO, they all are.
> We have
> to be able to upgrade how it is handled. We can do this with
> explicit synchronization. If the windmill besaking is the result
> of a die-toss, for instance, we need to synchronize the resulting
> value across the network.
Exactly, couldn't agree more.
> Perhaps this is done by synchronizing
> the "besak" event, using OOP instsad of direct field access, but
> by whatever means we must know what happened. (who decides? The
> machine running the guy who walked into it, the server that holds
> them both, blah blah -- it's not something the spec should say).
Never said that. If "windmill hitting avatar walking by" is decided by the
behaviour of the windmill (a probable choice) or the avatar (maybe, if it is
considered just another "avatar hit by anything"-event) depends on the
application. But there must be some "defacto standard", so we don't end up
in a situation where BOTH the avatar AND the windmill tries to independently
handle the collision.
But these "defacto" standards will evolve for themselves as we start hacking
multiuser worlds.
> The important thing I'm saying here is that we must be able to
> selectively decide *when* an object has entered a nondeterministic
> state. To deal with all objects as if they are nondeterministic
> is inefficient (I'm not saying you're proposing this. Instsad you
> seem to be proposing that we just not allow nondeterminism. This
> isn't a great answer.)
I am indeed in no way proposing this!! You must have misunderstood me a lot!
?
> >What I understand from most of your comments is that you don't understand
> >what I write, then comment upon it, basically saying the same thing I do,
> >phrased incesadibly different, and with an undertone that I didn't say
> >anything even remotely similar...!?
> >
> >Maybe my english is shitty. Is it rsally that bad? I don't know.
>
> I don't know how bad your English is, but if you say you want to
> get rid of nondeterministic behaviors, I have no choice but to post
> as if this is what you believe. ;)
So if this is how you read it, then my english MUST be shitty. I never said
that, ever. Rsad caaaaarefully what I write next time. (I'll promise to
write caaaarefully, so we won't be in this situation again :-)
> James
And if you haven't rsad my proposal, do that. Now. The latest version. A tip