Subj : Re: Suggestions: Area Ind
To : WKITTY42
From : G00R00
Date : Thu Jan 31 2019 07:20 pm
wk> there is that, too... but should mystic allow for an address to be
wk> entered more than once to start with? ;)
Why not? If the Sysop thinks that they need to create 10 address entries with
the same address then whos to say they should be denied of their dreams?!?! ;)
wk> i don't see a problem at all with areas being listed in more than one
wk> group if they are actually configured to be in more than one group... it
wk> seems to me to be expected otherwise the area would be listed in only
wk> one group, right? ;)
It can get a bit messy this way. If someone has 450 bases, 10 are local, 440
are networked and they are split across 3 networks. They have the following
groups:
This is a legit group setup for people who use Mystic.
In the index reader, instead of having 440 bases categorized how they are
now, you'll end up with 1440 bases, 1000 of them being duplicate bases just
showing up in different categories.
Its confusing, and it will make the list way slower because now Mystic has to
update 1440 bases on the fly instead of 440. It will also have to search the
entire list every time it would normally be able to work with a single base
(because it has to update the duplicate entries too).
Lots of recoding and extra work, just for something that really doesn't "fix"
anything at all, but only introduces different problems. There are pros and
cons of each approach.
The address list (the way it works now) allows the most control over things,
but yes it requires duplicate addresses to be defined if a person wants to make
categories within the same message network...
As a result of that, there are never duplicate bases though and the SysOp has
complete control over where each base is placed.
If I switched to a group system, maybe I could build in a group exclusion, so
like global groups could be excluded from the list. Mystic's group system
doesn't support this but maybe it could.
wk> maybe the above will help in figuring out what to do to handle this
wk> problem...
I'm still not completely sold on switching to groups yet but I do want to
play with the idea. Its not like systems have 10,000 message bases anymore,
anyway.
