<HEAD><TITLE>discuss@charon: [130] in "Coldmud discussion meeting"</TITLE>
<H1>[130] in Coldmud discussion meeting</H1></HEAD>
<A HREF="/"><IMG SRC="/i-d.gif" ALT="root"></A>
<A HREF="?130"><IMG SRC="/i-back.gif" ALT="meeting"></A>
<A HREF="/help.html"><IMG SRC="/i-help.gif" ALT="help"></A>
<A HREF="1"><IMG SRC="/i-first.gif" ALT="first"></A>
<IMG SRC="/n-fref.gif" ALT="">
<IMG SRC="/n-pref.gif" ALT="">
<A HREF="129"><IMG SRC="/i-prev.gif" ALT="previous"></A>
<A HREF="131"><IMG SRC="/i-next.gif" ALT="next"></A>
<IMG SRC="/n-nref.gif" ALT="">
<IMG SRC="/n-lref.gif" ALT="">
<A HREF="1641"><IMG SRC="/i-last.gif" ALT="last"></A>
<HR><H2>Naming objects, and a verb cache</H2>
<H3>daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Thu Dec 23 01:27:45 1993
)</H3>
<PRE>
From: ghudson@MIT.EDU
Date: Thu, 23 Dec 93 01:23:17 EST
To: coldstuff@MIT.EDU


I've been thinking about renaming dbrefs recently.  Some of you have
been asking if it's possible to rename dbrefs, and I've been saying,
"No, no more than you can change object numbers in MOO."

But that's because I've been implementing dbrefs in Coldmud in more or
less the same way object numbers are implemented in MOO; there's no
layer of indirection between #3263 and an object in MOO, and likewise
no layer of indirection between $admin1 and an object in Coldmud that
would allow me to transparently change object dbrefs without breaking
things.

The issue is, of course, what happens to code and data references to
the objects.  If you want all those to break, then you can simply copy
the object and destroy the old one, and you're set.  In certain cases,
this may be what you want; for instance, code references to $string
are probably concerned with the functionality of $string and not a
particular object.

At any rate, the upshot is: I could, with a bit of work, provide the
functionality of changing object dbrefs so that all code and data
references get updated.  Or so that data references get updated but
code references stay the same.  This would let you do things like make
your dbref into your name, even if you changed names (unless you
changed your name to, say, "user", in which case you'd have to
compromise somehow, but that's a detail), and nothing would break.
You wouldn't have to change entries in room's contents lists, or
$sys's user lists, or whatnot.

But I'm not sure if I should:

* Object dbrefs fill the role of pointers in C: they act a lot like
pointers to data structures.  That they have a printable, parseable
representation is more or less an accident, inherited from MOO, that's
hard to get away from without changing the way everyone thinks.

If I start using object dbrefs as names for the objects, and not just
mildly descriptive pointers, then am I trying to fill two distinct
roles with one construct?  Can I easily distinguish between a
reference that's intended as a name reference ($string) and a
reference that's intended as a pointer reference ($programmer22 in a
contents listing)?

* Object dbrefs are a flat namespace.  Even if the pointer nature of
dbrefs doesn't make them a bad thing to use as names, the flat aspect
of the namespace may be.  On the other hand, I haven't seen any really
good ideas for a replacement for a flat namespace, or an idea of who
should control it.  MOO has a dynamic, flat namespace (the variables
on #0), controlled purely by the admins, and you wind up with people
referring to objects by number a lot, which is clearly pessimal.  (I
really can't believe that people actually debated and adopted object
number recycling instead of trying to fix the problem.)

(The VR naming scheme--you know, .match_environment()--is quite
powerful for the problem it addresses, but it's completely worthless
for programming and somewhat inadequate for building.)

When I started writing fume (was going to be Muck-like, with a C-like
instead of Forth-like language, but then I saw Coolmud and decided I
liked the mud-written-in-the-language approach better), I had the idea
of a two-tiered namespace, a global one controlled by the admins and
then a separate one for each player.

But individual namespaces are inconvenient; I'd like for all users to
have the same view of the world, and at the same time for users to
have some control over that view.

I think my conclusions from this line of thought are:

	* Dbrefs make bad names for objects, although they make good
pointers and reasonable "annotated pointers".  Trying to make them
into names is a bad solution.  Making them symbolic in the first place
was questionable.

	* There should be a separate construct for naming objects,
probably with parser support to make it fast and more palatable for
programmers.

	* Making a dynamic naming scheme for objects is easy; deciding
how it should be structured and controlled is hard.

I will think about this some more, perhaps settle on something like a
hierarchy so that the db can allow users to control parts of the
namespace.  I'd be interested in hearing what other people think about
this.

I haven't even addressed the issue of reverse-resolution (that is,
turning a dbref into a name that will evaluate--in the short term, at
least--back into the dbref).  The reverse-resolution problem is what
tipped me towards symbolic dbrefs in the first place.

Naturally, this won't go into 1.0, which is coming out in eight days.

Okay, the verb cache: I think that, with sufficiently clever use of
dictionaries, I can make a central verb cache that will only need to
be rebuilt when a user enters a line that's not a command or exit name
in a new room (that is, a room recently entered by the user which
previously had no other users in it).  This is a pretty good solution,
since it doesn't involve rebuilding the cache often when users are in
exploration mode (assuming they don't misspell or mis-guess exit names
a lot), in programming mode, or in chatting mode.

Also, since verb cache management will be central, it should be a lot
cleaner than the current strewn-all-over-the-database approach.  Still
not terribly OO (as would be, say, asking each object in the
environment whether it can handle a line, and having each object check
all its ancestors, etc.), but in this case flexibility will take a
back seat to efficiency.

--GBH

</PRE>
