Hm, thinking a bit more about it, I guess you have a very good point there;
of course, you could let there be an 'virtual' inventory item (with the assetId
as the inventoryId) that translates to the asset itself - and that would have
some special way of determining permissions.
That said, I'd much rather do something like separating out the 'permissions'
bit in inventory and have that mean 'asset permissions for the trust domain' -
you can still operate on the permissions in the same manner, and the net result
will be the same, I guess.
In other words; instead of having restricted inventory and full access assets,
I'd rather say you had full access inventory and restricted assets, if that is
any the least clearer?
If you strip out permissions and type from inventory, the only thing left is
name, owner and some data - and the inventory has most oftenly a pretty
straightforward perms set (only let owner see and change on trusted regions)
while assets parms can vary wildly with application.
Best regards,Stefan AnderssonTribal Media AB> Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2009 08:24:52
-0500> From: tera...@gmail.com> To: opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de> Subject: Re:
[Opensim-dev] AssetBase and metadata> > To the 'all assets have inventory items
associated with them', no,> they don't, however, there's no harm in requesting
the inventory item> where possible. It would limit the UUIDs that systems would
have> access to as a reference, as well. I'm sure that there will be some>
methods that must use Asset ID. Mostly, images. I suppose object> inventory
might use Asset ID also, but probably does not have to until> they're requested
by the client for editing.> > To the 'So I guess I don't understand what
specific case you're> referring to?', See last Tuesday's Zero meeting for
several references> to the pitfalls of Hypergrid (and it's not just Zero saying
things to> criticize it. It's our users as well. That was a widely positive>
meeting towards Hypergrid to the detriment of LLOGP. Mingled within> that, the
way we handle property was the main criticism.> > Reference:
http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/User:Zero_Linden/Office_Hours/2009_Jan_27> > I
was saying that currently, we're doing nothing at all to limit> trust. If we
maintain this approach, it will be a big factor in> other,
non-currently-codified, standards being adopted and It'll> likely be impossible
to fully implement other 'permissioned' standards> without some way to check
the permissions first (such as OGP).> Currently, directly requesting Assets
precludes this option. Not all> virtual worlds will have 'Property', but the
ones that do will suffer.> Comparing to a web server, think .htaccess.> > Best
Regards> > Teravus> > On 2/2/09, Stefan Andersson <ste...@tribalmedia.se>
wrote:> > Are we sure all assets have inventory items associated with them?> >>
> I can think of scripted objects that set textureIds programatically.> >
(Melanie pointed that out to me)> >> > You can also have the case where you
upload a texture (yes, it's in> > inventory) apply it to a shirt, then delete
the original inventory item (the> > asset is still referenced from within the
shirt asset, but is in no> > inventory)> >> > So I guess I don't understand
what specific case you're referring to?> >> > Best regards,> > Stefan
Andersson> > Tribal Media AB> >> >> > > Date: Sun, 1 Feb 2009 23:58:55 -0500> >
> From: tera...@gmail.com> > > To: opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de> > > Subject:
Re: [Opensim-dev] AssetBase and metadata> > >> > > Is there any reason that we
don't request items from the asset server> > > internally by the inventory UUID
instead of the asset UUID?> > > Requesting assets by inventory UUID would make
it a LOT simpler to> > > apply permissions at the trusted service level instead
of at the> > > simulator level.> > >> > > Best Regards> > >> > > Teravus> > >>
> > On 2/1/09, Mike Mazur <mma...@gmail.com> wrote:> > > > Hi,> > > >> > > > On
Fri, 30 Jan 2009 07:37:27 -0500> > > > Sean Dague <sda...@gmail.com> wrote:> >
> >> > > > > It's fine for the object to be called AssetMetaData, just don't
make> > > > > the property that.> > > >> > > > On Fri, 30 Jan 2009 14:51:12
+0000 (GMT)> > > > MW <michaelwr...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:> > > >> > > > > I
agree, I'd say call the class AssetMetaData, but just call the> > > > >
property (in AssetBase) MetaData.> > > >> > > > Makes perfect sense. Thanks for
the feedback.> > > >> > > > Mike> > > >
_______________________________________________> > > > Opensim-dev mailing
list> > > > Opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de> > > >
https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev> > > >> > >
_______________________________________________> > > Opensim-dev mailing list>
> > Opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de> > >
https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev> >> >> >
_______________________________________________> > Opensim-dev mailing list> >
Opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de> >
https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev> >> >>
_______________________________________________> Opensim-dev mailing list>
Opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de>
https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev
_______________________________________________
Opensim-dev mailing list
Opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de
https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev
