# Suggestion, re: Minimal.db

F HAGER X0366 (LIFH@atuvm.atu.edu)
Tue, 5 Dec 1995 10:27:56 PST

- Messages sorted by:[ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]

    >
    >
    >	I'm remembering all the discussion about the Minimal Db,
    >its uses and shortcomings.  I'd like to join the crowd and offer
    >my belated suggestions.
    >
    >	I hear the spelling object is buggy or perhaps is not
    >used any more.  Has anyone hooked up a use-counter to it to see
    >if this is the case?  If it is buggy/unused, can it's apparently
    >vast space be used for anything else?
    >
    As far as I know noboddy uses $spell simply because it is too big.
    There could be something else I'm not aware of.
    >	I use the Book object a lot.  I picked it up at Ranalou's
    >place and the book object I had there for the longest time was
    >the BEST - small, simple and very usable.  Noteditor works
    >perfectly with it, and all my jottings are collected.  This
    >objectis not in the Minimal - am I the only person who really
    >likes this object?
    >
    The reason it's not in the minimal is because it's not essential..it
    maybe useful.. but so is a social verb core.
    >	The Autoport is a great mechanism.  I think if the
    >stablest forms can be compared and a best one chosen, that winner
    >should be placed in the new Minimal.  Whatever qualifies for
    >'best' is anyone's guess, however I like having it on one object
    >as suggested.
    >
    It's possible that this was and will not be included because it
    requires a character ElseMOO and might incourage less experienced
    wizards to steal code.
    >	A variation on this theme, perhaps - an AutoPorter that
    >would interface with an FTP site to update or requests updates of
    >various objects.  That way, when perhaps a new version of say
    >notedit is released, those interested can update their system
    >easily and with great confidence.
    >
    This is a good idea! It would allow for people to make objects publicly
    portable if they wish to and only if they wish to.

    >	This may necessitate a standard for Moos - like #0, some
    >place where autoport can find pointers to 'known' objects -
    >perhaps Everyman has changed, or something like that.  That way
    >Autoport can correct code that is made Autoportable via keywords
    >in comments, etc, and make sure that the code will use the same
    >objects on the destination system.
    >
    Once again a great idea. This could create a hug new standard. This
    would be a step closer to making MOOs somewhat interdependent on each
    other.. which in a way is a good thing.
    >
    --Rand && Mat @ Most MOOs/MatC @ Lambda