It makes little sense to me to put time into convincing a random non-Linden. And since LL is going to ignore the whole discussion/idea anyway, I have better things to do. Sorry.
On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 11:56:36AM -0500, Lear Cale wrote: > If it were a simple change, I'm sure it would be considered. What > you're suggesting sounds like would require a massive rewrite. I > agree that a dynamic system would be much better, easier to code and > less wasted memory. But without detailed knowledge of how the system > is currently implemented, it's not possible to assess how difficult it > would be to change from a fixed allocation scheme to a dynamic one. > > It's easy to ask for changes without regard to the cost. LL needs to > consider the cost, in terms of effort and risk. Can you do a > cost/benefit analysis on your suggestion? Or are you just being > immovably stubborn? There would be a one-time cost to write it. I doubt that needed four to eight times the amount of physical RAM weight up against any (possible) maintenance cost (which I estimate to be neglectable in the first place). > Lear -- Carlo Wood <ca...@alinoe.com> _______________________________________________ Policies and (un)subscribe information available here: http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/OpenSource-Dev Please read the policies before posting to keep unmoderated posting privileges
