We can't step away from SL compatibility until there is a full-featured, viable viewer, preferably not based on Linden Labs code. Until then, the viewer's asset caching mechanism make that impossible.
Melanie Dirk Krause wrote: > ... > >>> This would mean that any grid runs into a severe problem over time. > >>> Yep :). On a standalone one could implement some cleanup scheme > which checks everything to see >>> if an asset is still referenced, and deletes that asset if it is not. >>> In grid mode this is a much more difficult problem since references > are scattered across many different >>> regions servers. The situation is even worse if you are running a > grid where not all of them are >>> guaranteed to be connected. > > But isn't that ... horrible? (in lack of a better/worse word.) > > As I said yesterday, IMHO there is no real need to think about > optimizations when you have > a serious blocker like this. I would even go so far that this is a major > roadblock for grid based technologies per se. (grid as in Rosedale's > 'Happily now, Second Life has been proven to exist. If we disappeared > tomorrow, the grid would be rebuilt by you.') > > I take it the bad news is that any proposed solution to this breaks SL > compatibility? > > Maybe now would be a good time to take a step away from it. > > _______________________________________________ > 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