1  |   Order by index

Sep 10, 1998, 8:09am

Hello,

I only recently was aware about the new SDK
http://www.activeworlds.com/sdk/
Althought I already had experimented with Hambot (build on top of SDK).

Note: I find Hambot very interesting to start very quickly to build bots
application.


I find the architecture of the new SDK innovative, in particular in that

it allows the design of real distributed applications.


My questions (remark, which), is the following:

How difficult it would be to have a java version of the system ?
Is there any plan in this direction ?

Note:
The idea would be more in a first step to encapsulate the C library into
java rather
than to rewrite this library in java.


I am also wondering if the current approach for supporting multiple
simultaneous instances
==== extract from the documentation ====
Applications that use multiple instances need to keep track of the
instance handles returned by
aw_create and must use aw_instance_set to specifiy which instance each
particular operation
is intended for.
====
could not be a problem if we want to use multithreading in a SDK
application. (java
provides a good support to multithreading).
The idea is to associate a thread to each instance, so as to implement
each bot
as an active object. (an active object is an object with an associated
thread of execution ).

The current aw_instance_set() would make for me multithreading almost
impossible to
implement.

Am I wrong ?
Any other idea ?


Thierry Nabeth ("calt exec" in AWUniverse).
Research Fellow,
INSEAD CALT (the Centre for Advanced Learning Technologies).
http://www.insead.fr/CALT/
Worlds: INSEAD, Virtalun, tibm

Sep 10, 1998, 7:54pm

There's an sdk newsgroup here (news://news.activeworlds.com/sdk) which this
would be more fitting for - or at least a crosspost.

[View Quote]

Sep 11, 1998, 3:42pm

Hello,

Thank you,
I didn't know about this group.

I believe I didn't browse enough the web site.

Thierry

[View Quote] > There's an sdk newsgroup here (news://news.activeworlds.com/sdk) which this
> would be more fitting for - or at least a crosspost.
>

1  |   Order by index