Re: MOO and VRML 2.0 ?

• Date: Sat, 17 Feb 1996 12:50:26 PST
• From:
  Tom Meyer <twm@cs.brown.edu>

Well, I've been running a MOO that has been outputing VRML for about a
year now (Waxweb, actually that MOO was the first web server of any
kind to be serving up VRML), and have been deeply involved in the VRML
Architecture Group, which is just now helping to decide what will
happen with VRML 2.0.  So I'm fairly immersed in both areas, but have
not been that pleased by how suitable MOO is for VRML.

I now generate VRML files on the fly from an http-speaking MOO server.
Before I added in VRML support, the server worked quite well.  Since
the VRML files are roughly ten times larger than the HTML files that
describe the room, that caused enormous slow-downs in the MOO.  MOOs
were never designed for large, sustained amounts of text throughput,
so don't handle this extremely well.

I'm very interested in combining the ideas in MOOs and VRML, but feel
that generating VRML on the fly in an interpreted language doesn't
scale very well, especially when the OODB that's generating it was
designed for small, rapid (interactive) updates.

BTW, I have a paper on what I've done up on my web page
<http://www.cs.brown.edu/people/twm/>.

Tom Meyer

• Prev: Re: MOO and VRML 2.0 ?
• Next: Re: MOO and VRML 2.0 ?
• Index: MOO-cows
• Thread: MOO-cows