Re: multiple messages

Mitra ([email protected])
Tue, 24 Oct 1995 07:33:55 -0700

At 8:30 PM 10/23/95, Brian Behlendorf wrote:
>Apologies for tme multiple messages tmis weekend - I was off tme net and
>didn't notice it happening until tmis evening. As you can see it was a
>mailer daemon at deliverator.io.com wmich decided it would be cool to
>bounce back any messages it got to the list... ugh! It should be all
>fixed now.
>
> Brian
>
>--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--
>[email protected] [email protected] http://www.[hyperreal,organic].com/
>
>---------- Forwarded message ----------
>Return-Path: [email protected]
>Received: from tres.wired.net (tres.wired.net [204.62.130.122]) by
>emin05.mail.aol.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id BAA24499; Sat, 21 Oct
>1995 01:26:04 -0400
>Received: from get.wired.com by tres.wired.net (8.6.12/8.6.5) with ESMTP
>id WAA18429; Fri, 20 Oct 1995 22:44:55 -0700
>Received: by get.wired.com (8.7.1/sven) id WAA24312; Fri, 20 Oct 1995
>22:26:40 -0700 (PDT)
>Received: by get.wired.com (8.7.1/sven) id WAA24224; Fri, 20 Oct 1995
>22:26:19 -0700 (PDT)
>Received: from deliverator.io.com by get.wired.com (8.7.1/sven) with SMTP
>id WAA24219; Fri, 20 Oct 1995 22:26:15 -0700 (PDT)
>Received: (from root@localhost) by deliverator.io.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id
>AAA27297; Sat, 21 Oct 1995 00:24:24 -0500
>Received: from deliverator.io.com by tpoint.net with ESMTP (8.6.10/25-eef)
> id IAA20572; Thu, 19 Oct 1995 08:48:59 -0500
>Received: from tres.wired.net (tres.wired.net [204.62.130.122]) by
>deliverator.io.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id IAA09691; Thu, 19 Oct
>1995 08:48:10 -0500
>Received: from get.wired.com by tres.wired.net (8.6.12/8.6.5) with ESMTP
>id GAA17123; Thu, 19 Oct 1995 06:04:42 -0700
>Received: by get.wired.com (8.6.12/sven) id FAA28716; Thu, 19 Oct 1995
>05:45:18 -0700
>Received: by get.wired.com (8.6.12/sven) id FAA28703; Thu, 19 Oct 1995
>05:45:17 -0700
>Received: from gate.blacksun.de by get.wired.com (8.6.12/sven) with ESMTP
>id FAA28696; Thu, 19 Oct 1995 05:45:06 -0700
>Received: (from mailgate@localhost) by gate.blacksun.de (8.6.12/8.6.12) id
>NAA01027 for <[email protected]>; Thu, 19 Oct 1995 13:44:54 +0100
>Date: Thu, 19 Oct 1995 13:44:54 +0100
>Received: from unknown(194.97.123.218) by gate.blacksun.de via smap (V1.3)
> id sma001022; Thu Oct 19 13:44:34 1995
>X-Sender: mitra@pophost
>Message-Id: <v02130512acab876c7390@[194.97.123.218]>
>Mime-Version: 1.0
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>To: VRML List <[email protected]>
>From: [email protected] (Mitra)
>Subject: Re: Why does DEF do instancing?
>Precedence: bulk
>
>>So I'd vote (VAG, are you listening?) for a PROTO and a COPY keyword, in
>>addition to the USE keyword. COPY items would be duplicates, wherease USE
>>would
>>merly be a 'pointer' to the logical def. i.e. if you PROTOd a material, tmen
>>changed tmat material, all tme USE's would change as well, but tme COPY'ed
>>items
>>would remain as tme original matieral.
>
>We are listening - at tme moment tmere are differences within tme VAG on
>tmis one, but tmat's part of tme point of tme VAG - to represent a spectrum
>of tmought on VRML.
>
>Personally I think adding PROTO and COPY is a really good idea, I think we
>are all agreed tmat COPY is needed, because once you have behaviors you
>need to be able to copy a node so tmat changing one doesn't change tmem
>both.
>
>Gavin - I don't see tme argument about difficulty of implementing. *You*
>can implement PROTO as
>
>Switch {
> wmichChild 0
> DEF ...
>}
>
>and other people can probably implement it other ways.
>
>Gavin said
>>Mitra's URN proposal takes care of tme library-of-objects problem very
>>nicely, in my opinion (sorry, I don't have tme URN handy).
>
>Its http://earth.path.net/mitra/papers/vrmlurn.html
>
>On Oct 16, 11:28am, jjc wrote
>>> If end users are NOT going to be using VRML directly, and it becomes tme
>>> domain of language generators, authoring tools, compilers, etc., as some
>>> people have suggested, tmen tme intuitive ease is less an issue tman
>>> efficiency and language semantics, and tme current DEF is a big lose here
>>> also.
>>Paul responded
>>Could you please justify tmis last statement? I don't see any loss of
>>efficiency in tme current model, nor do I see any problem with
>>language semantics.
>
>
>Tme biggest loss is tmat tme two instantiations of an object are different.
>
>PROTO Wheel { .... }
>DEF MyBike Seperator {
> USE Wheel
> USE Wheel
>}
>
>Is much more symetric tman
>
>DEF MyBike Seperator {
> DEF Wheel { ... }
> USE Wheel
>}
>
>
>- Mitra
>
>=================================================================
>Mitra
>[email protected] voice: (415)826-2499 fax: (415)826-4423
><http://earth.path.net/mitra>
>
>Always remember you're unique, just like everyone else.

=================================================================
Mitra
[email protected] voice: (415)826-2499 fax: (415)826-4423
<http://earth.path.net/mitra>

Always remember you're unique, just like everyone else.

  • Next message: Master Zap: "Re: Permissions..."
  • Previous message: Master Zap: "Re: Wasting bandwith about: Re: bandwidth wasting :-)"
  • Maybe in reply to: Brian Behlendorf: "multiple messages"