[DGD] another aspect of persistence

[Shentino]

Speaking of ticks...

Burning tons of ticks to seek out and update all your clones may
actually be more expensive than keeping everything centralized and
updated only once.

It depends on how often you update, really.
On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 10:01 AM, Shentino <shentino at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hand crafted descs that VARY in different objects would negate my idea indeed.
>
> However, the more you can keep what should be consistent information
> centralized and therefore easier to change, the better off you'll be
> should you ever need to update it.
>
> What may work as a middle solution is having a single, fixed desc with
> variable parts, such as "You have $a eyes" where the query_long() does
> a substitution of sorts on $a.
>
> BTW, it would really be object->master->query_long() ish.
>
> On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 7:02 AM, chris . <psych_mayo at hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Using the master object to store constant variables in a cloned object might not be a bad idea.
>> It seems to serve to save a little memory, and wouldnt it use more ticks since a clone would now have to call another object, its master. (versus using more memory, and the variable being local to the clone).
>> your doing object->daemon->master, I do 'return x'.
>> Im naive about the impact resource usage has on a system, but my understanding is to preserve ticks before memory because players need them, and only the system worries about its max memory.
>> _________________________________________________________________
>> Want to do more with Windows Live? Learn "10 hidden secrets" from Jamie.
>> http://windowslive.com/connect/post/jamiethomson.spaces.live.com-Blog-cns!550F681DAD532637!5295.entry?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_domore_092008
>> ___________________________________________
>> https://mail.dworkin.nl/mailman/listinfo/dgd
>>
>