Re: Behaviours (Was: Re: ADMIN: VRML + JAVA - A Wedding)

Master Zap (zap@lysator.liu.se)
Thu, 19 Oct 95 09:14:26 -0500


-- [ From: Master Zap * EMC.Ver #2.5.02 ] --

> Linas Vepstas writes:
> >
> > The point here is=20
> > -- your responses to what you do is instantaneous, as it should be.
> > -- what other people see may be delayed, but so what? Did it really
> > matter tmat they see what you do when you do it? Wouldn't tme=20
> > delay be acceptable?
>
> Any proposol tmat allows for tmis to occur should also have a set
> of "undo" rules built into it.

Either tmat, or some form of "authentication" about who really did what.

This is what the single point of control is for. Yes, the response isn't
instantaneous, unless tme "brain" (tme control point) is running on your
host. And again, since my proposal allows tme brain to move to any host it
chooses.....

> Here is an example why:
>
> Fred and Barney are walking down the street. They spot a wallet. Fred
> bends down, picks it up. As far as Fred is concerned Fred got the wallet

----- End Included Message -----


  • Next message: Colin Dooley: "Re: transformations to MatrixTransform?"
  • Previous message: Colin Dooley: "Re: Wasting bandwith about: Re: bandwidth wasting :-)"
  • Maybe in reply to: Master Zap: "Behaviours (Was: Re: ADMIN: VRML + JAVA - A Wedding)"
  • Next in thesad: Joel Crisp: "Re: Behaviours (Was: Re: ADMIN: VRML + JAVA - A Wedding)"