ThreadBoard ArchivesSite FeaturesActiveworlds SupportHistoric Archives |
extension to the local path feature (Wishlist)
extension to the local path feature // WishlistcodewarriorOct 31, 2003, 10:34pm
It would be cool if the local path feature allowed for a
'default' search path in addition to the specific per-world mechanism it uses now. Currently, you have to manually set up a directory tree that contains the name of your domain server and any subfolders you may need in the URL (mangled of course). Then you need to populate that folder with another copy of the megapath, or as I mentioned in another post, you can create a shortcut to the same megapath from multiple places, but you have to do this manually, and it's a little ugly for the average person to figure out a pathname after the fact from a cache folder entry and go set it all up. By then you've already wasted the bandwidth anyway. It would be useful if you could tell the feature to *always* consult a specific folder on your local machine regardless of the domain you were attempting to access, in addition to doing what it does now (a per world mapping). This would allow people to dump a copy of the megapath locally onto their hard drives, and surf a great many worlds without having to download a single 'stock' object. Enabling this feature dramatically reduces bandwidth consumption even if you just spend a lot of time working in your own world. People who fiddle with stock objects without changing the names shouldn't do that anyway :-) strike rapierNov 1, 2003, 10:32am
codewarriorNov 1, 2003, 11:23am
[View Quote]
I don't see how it could be used to automatically supply
all megapath content for all worlds you visit without having to manually edit the multipath script. What I describe below is real easy for the non techie to set up. It would just work out of the box with no extra stuff to set up other than one copy of the megapath on a locally accessable drive, and the AW installer or a new browser feature could make that painless too. Not only would doing this save a lot of bandwidth, it also *could* mean that the cache directory you already have would not need to store those redundant copies of all the megapath models over and over again in each persons world. Assuming this was implemented, the browser could decide that if it got a local copy of something, it didn't need to put another version of it in the given worlds cache directory. If you current cache did not have cached versions of any of the megapath stuff in any of the directories, how much filesystem space and bandwidth would you save? Multiply it by the number of universes you might visit. Multiply it by the number of visitors to your world. It could add up. If I was paying AW's OP path bill... installation of a local tarball of default objects would be mandatory before you ever came in the door. By design... it would cut the monthly bandwidth for all AW megapath driven worlds by... ummm.. gee.. let's see... carry the four... add the six... 100%! (assuming they sent you everything and neglecting the initial download) If it was done really nicely, they could send you big chunks as you need them. Go into a 'standard' world, and a dialog says "Would you like to add the MARS content to your local hard drive for faster loading?". If a set of stock objects was mandatory, world owners could have much smaller FTP spaces with only the models they have that are unique on them. This could make it cheaper and more accessable to people to have their own OP path, and they would certainly be easier to manage without the megapath on them. It takes a gnarly server to deal with the entire megapath anyway. You probably have enough room for it all, but you will probably hit a limit on the number of files you may have, and Apache is sorely stressed in dealing with directories that have many many thousands of files in them as well. It just seems like something that would make a huge difference, would not take AW much effort to implement (90% of the mechanism is already there), and it would save both AW and all their customers a whack of real money in bandwidth costs. Plus it would make everyones browsers go much faster. What's the downside to this one again? > [View Quote] bowen ten.sardna@newobNov 1, 2003, 2:23pm
[View Quote]
Why would IIS be your first choice? Right, I forgot, nevermind.
-- --Bowen-- http://bowen.homelinux.com Give me ideas. |