Re: byte based quota

• Date: Mon, 30 Oct 1995 20:25:42 PST
• From:
  brandon@avon.declab.usu.edu
• Content-Length: 2623
• Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

Colin Verne spaketh forsoothley:
< I think that a Byte Quota system actually encourages OO development, on 
< the fact that if they are limited to X number of objects, and they want 
< more stuff, things like metarooms and other objects that simulate 
< multiple objects develop.  If you want a pure OO system, yet still have a 
< quota, you'd let players create as many objects as they want, each with 
< their own descriptions etc, but yet still be controled by the total size 
< of their objects.  The more objects, the more OO it is.

I dont know if it encourages OO development, because the basic concept of
object orientation in programming is modularity and encapsulation of data
(which doesn't make too much sense when applied against a virtual environment
system).

However, for the MOO model object based quota is actually better, because
larger objects are preferred because of the way MOO handles them.  This
assumption breaks down though, when in relation to other applications, such
as coldx/genesis.  Objects in cold are preferable smaller, because it only
pulls into active memory objects which it needs (you usually run a db at
around ~2-3 megs).  If you were to encourage people to use large bloated
objects it would actually run less efficiently.  Instead you want to
encourage them to use smaller and more compact/modular objects.  This speeds
up loading inactive objects from disk, and also takes up less active memory.

Also, another twist on byte based quota some may be interested in is a
more social outlook to handling allocation.  Basically, it starts with
allowing multiple users to own an object (not necessarily write to it),
i.e. an object takes up 600 bytes and is owned by 3 people only 200 bytes
are taken from each person.  From here you allow a public way of sharing
an object, such as @share/@noshare here.  Since ownership gives no other
permissions than taking quota, sharing in this way isn't a security problem.

>From this point it is implied that when somebody constructs something which
is enjoyed and used in the environment, others will appreciate that
existing and will share its quota, thereby freeing up some quota for the
creator to further add to their nicely designed extensions.  Of course you
do have the problem of diminishing returns, which can easilly be fixed
by adding the same sort of arb setup.  The thing is, this would simplify
arb style decisions in that it would be easy to see if somebody is helping
add to the community--simply see how many of their objects are shared.

BTW, ColdCore (ColdX/Genesis) has shared byte ownership.

-Brandon Gillespie/Lynx-

• Prev: Re: byte based quota
• Next: Re: byte based quota
• Index: MOO-cows
• Thread: MOO-cows