What about message blocks?
>> - Compound Updates
>>
>> Keeping position and orientation in separate properties makes sense,
>> since some vobjects may not need orientation, keep it constant even
>> while moving, etc. However, especially for avatars, position and
>> orientation change usually happen simultaneously. The fact is lost to
>> every receiving client; to them it looks like your avatar makes a
>> step, then a turn, then a step, then a turn...
>
> Yes, I agree, that always annoyed me. It's a problem of granularity,
> since it's reasonable to what to access the properties separately *or*
> together. One possibility is with embedded children, you have a
> concrete set of values that always are part of a particular vobject
> type, so you could ask for updates to consist of the entire vobject.
>
>> This kind of update should really be sent in a single message, to
>> preserve its semantics, and to save transmission overhead. Of course,
>> a special "a3dl:movement" message could solve this particular
>> problem, but would sort of break the property update architecture. A
>> generic "compound update" facility would be nicer for cases where
>> multiple property changes must be transmitted in a single update
>> message. Maybe a revival of the message block...?
>
> Actually, within the new design, bundling arbitrary messages together
> isn't so hard. However, there's another question, which is to what
> extent the receiving side needs to know about bundled messages -- it may
> not make much difference to bundle the messages if they just get split
> up and queued separately when they're received anyways.
_______________________________________________
vos-d mailing list
vos-d@interreality.org
http://www.interreality.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/vos-d
