[Uni-verse] Update of WP 6.2 (Alternative Server implementation)

[Gert Svensson]

Dear Friends,

Eskil and Emil had come up with many good remarks on the alternative 
server implementation.
When I first heard about a disk based server I believed that we were 
talking about a server which
could store it's data on disk on the fly. This would allow having more 
data in the server than primary
memory. Just saving and reloading data from disk already exist in the 
current implementation and is
no big challenge.

The access control and project handling are however important features. 
It would however be much more
faster to implement that in the current server as Eskil and Emil proposes.

Would it be possible for Eskil/Emil and FHG to come up with a joint 
proposal taking those
issues into account?

Best Regards
Gert

Eskil Steenberg wrote:

>Hi
>
>  
>
>>True, except for the bits about threading and stuff. I seem to recall
>>you Eskil addressing why threading won't help the server performance
>>right away somewhere, but I can't recall it right now.
>>    
>>
>
>Oh i missed that.
>
>It would be very hard to multithread a verse server, any verse server
>running an un modifyed verse. the way verse works right now it works with
>all connections simultaniusly. almost all of the CPU taken up by the
>current verse server is in side of verse, so if you dont crack it open you
>wont gain anything. And re writing verse will be very very hard and not
>very usefull. This is why i have suggested a hirarcical aproach since it
>is far easyer to implement and is way more flexible.
>
>
>  
>
>>There is no avatar
>>object node representing the server, so there would be nowhere to send
>>method calls to, would there?
>>    
>>
>
>You could easely let the server have an avatar. nothing is stoping you.
>the difference is that the host is athorative so it can create its own
>node and doesnt have to get one handed like clients.
>
>  
>
>>>And if you want to have a webpage wthat displays statistics and stuff
>>>      
>>>
>> > that functionality should also be a separate application that connects
>> > to a server to retreve the data.
>>
>>Sure, but if it's done locally in the server, there can be a lot more
>>information available easily. To me, the obvious (?) way to do it would
>>be to define a method[*] that accepts e.g. a text node and buffer pair,
>>and has the server fill in either raw information, or pre-cooked HTML,
>>there. This keeps the information flowing inside Verse, at least.
>>    
>>
>
>I would ratere have the HTML creating part out side the server. The server
>can easely publich a tag group called statistics that an out side web
>maker could read. if the reader was smart you could config it to publich
>any tag or method call data so that you can make pages that display data
>that is specific to any server setup or server implementation.
>
>Cheers
>
>E
>
>_______________________________________________
>Uni-verse mailing list
>Uni-verse at projects.blender.org
>http://projects.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/uni-verse
>  
>