MOO-cows Mailing List Archive
Re: Cross-MOO OOP Code Sharing (WAS: "verbing properties" and related issues)
At 11:43 PM 8/1/96 PDT, Fiona McCrae wrote:
>The problem with sharing generic objects between moos is not encapsulation,
but object number reconciliation. I know Quinn's Generic Clothing is shared
on many MOOs, I ported it to my own once. It was a fornicating pain in the
donkey, all because my object numbers had no chance in purgatory of matching
those of the source MOO.
Well, an "Object Name Server" would be nice, assuming all MOOs would
cooperate and feed their generics into it each night or whenever. Since so
many use HTTP, I'll give some examples as GET requests.
This first request would ask for the LambdaMOO equivalent of #692 (generic
clothing) at Ghostwheel.
('@' may need to be converted to '%40' but that isn't important right
now--I'm just warding off hecklers.) It would return at least the following
header, and possibly a pretty HTML result for anyone who'd want it. Maybe
some kind MOO could run a public ONS server.
Anyway, the same server could do something like:
That would return (as the entity body) the @dumped code for #10108 at
Ghostwheel (a VR lock interface), with all explicit object numbers (in code
or property values), replaced with their equivalents (if any), on the
destination MOO CyberSphere.
Then you could do what you want with it. force_input() if the server is
returning a straight @dump, or decide on some standard scripting language
and interpret it.
Anyway, just some thoughts off the top of my head.
That sounds vain, doesn't it?
JUST SOME THOUGHTS I HAVE MULLED OVER FOR WEEKS DURING SMOKE BREAKS WHICH
PROBABLY DON'T AMOUNT TO ANYTHING WORTH CHICKEN FECES.
That sounds neurotic, doesn't it?
Subject Index |