Heya Lithium,

If there is a public warp and a private warp with the same name, the public one takes precedence. This surprised me, since in other areas (such as java coding ) more specific namespaces generally take precedence over less specific ones. But I thought, hey, no problem, just different, move on.

However, there's one problem I can't figure out. If there is a public warp named Statue, and I make a private warp also called Statue, I can't figure out how to use, rename, or delete my private warp. Is there a way to do this? If not, namespace qualifiers would be nice. For example: /warp delete my.Statue vs. /warp delete public.Statue (assuming that's my public warp and I can do that).

The problem is this: if one player knows the names of another player's private warps, the first player could create public warps with the same names. Then the second player (a) could not use or delete their own warps, and (b) if they are at quota, can't create any others, (c) allowing the first player to be a total PITA.

Thougths?

Thanks again for your continued work on a really good plugin!

This is actually a really good question, and thanks for bringing it up.

A little backstory: I originally placed public warps at a higher priority than private simply because of the use case on my own server, which is small (<20 people) and has a tight-knit community. We generally didn't step on each other's warp names, and public warps were our primary way of getting to important places, so public got a higher precedence.

Now that OpenWarp is seeing increased usage, I'm actually considering making that priority configurable (e.g. config file option to let users specify whether public, private, or shared warps are searched, and in what order). I have a survey out via Google Docs to explore some reasonable defaults here, if you're interested in taking it.

You do make a good point about the ability to "block" other people from managing their own warps fully, and so I'll leave this issue open as a reminder to solve that potential problem. Namespacing is most likely the way I'll go, but maybe not in dot-accessor form; I'll have to think about how to do it. Suggestions are appreciated, with the caveat that our command dispatching framework really likes space-separated terms.

Thanks again!

Thanks Tim! I just filled out your survey.

On Sun, Dec 4, 2011 at 1:59 PM, Tim Ekl <
[email protected]

wrote:

framework