Andreas Raab wrote:
On 3/20/2010 4:43 PM, Michael Rueger wrote:
On 3/20/10 4:35 PM, Marcus Denker wrote:
So why does everyone ignore TeaTime? I admit I don't understand the internals, but it obviously *looks* like it could be the basis of Nebraska (or any other P2P solution).
Can you point me to a real good publication about it? I mean, a *real* one?
AFAIK TeaTime never happened but they (Croquet/Cobalt) switched to some multiplayer game like sync scheme (at least the poor me understood when I saw the implementation ;-) ).
Actually we didn't. TeaTime (as conceived by David Reed) consisted of two separate ideas, namely that of a world synchronization protocol and that of a P2P network protocol. When David Smith and I implemented the version we shipped in Hedgehog we dropped the P2P network protocol part and only concentrated on the synchronization aspect which resulted in *major* simplifications. [...]
Coincidentally, I am toying regularly with the idea of using an even more simplified version of TeaTime to do something like Nebraska. Might get around to it one of these days, it's actually straightforward.
BTW, it's a misconception to think TeaTime is something complicated. Complicated things don't work. Simple things do. TeaTime is actually VERY simple. That's why it works. I'm extremely interested in this kind of thing, since it helps hybridize virtual worlds with hopefully beneficial results for all concerned.
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/vwrap/current/msg00082.html Lawson