Melanie wrote: > The important turning point of the discussion was when the talk > turned to splitting things out of Scene. I'm still dead set against > hiding Scene as it is today behind an interface, because it would > turn into just as unmaintainable a behemoth as IClientAPI is. > However, breaking things out of Scene into contained classes and > making Scene into what it should be - a manager for the objects > contained in it - makes that concept viable. > > I often react emotionally and quite strongly, you know that of me. > You also know I do come around, you've seen that many times.
Alright, I will try to factor that in. I would also appreciate it if you could try to rein that in a bit - communication purely via text is already difficult enough. > > Melanie > > > Justin Clark-Casey wrote: >> Melanie wrote: >>> Looks like you didn't read my post. I said, as a mid to long range >>> goal, yes. I didn't say we should never have it. I said it would >>> block critical fixes if it were forced onto the new region module >>> interface now. >> In your earlier posts you vehemently decried any notion of supplying a scene >> interface. I hope you haven't forgotten >> these already. >> >>> I'm not bullying anyone. You have not yet had the pleasure of seeing >>> me bully anyone. :) >> And I've no interest in trying to discuss something with someone who uses >> extreme statements without any hint that they >> can see the other person's point of view. >> >>> Melanie >>> >>> Justin Clark-Casey wrote: >>>> Sean Dague wrote: >>>>> Melanie wrote: >>>>>> Hi, >>>>>> >>>>>> as a mid to long range goal, +1, actually. >>>>>> >>>>>> but in the short run, the ability to load and unload regions is >>>>>> blocked by the existing module API, and to fix this basic piece of >>>>>> functionality, they need to be migrated to the new API, asap. >>>>>> >>>>>> If this is dragged into a long architectural discussion, we won't >>>>>> get region restarts for many more months. >>>>>> >>>>>> So, I'd rather see this iteration of the region module API pass >>>>>> Scene, and remove the old API very soon, and then think about >>>>>> architecting and refactoring when that is not a blocker to >>>>>> adding/repairing basic functionality. >>>>> I'd agree with Mel here about lets keep it a bit more open and sloppy >>>>> for now, and start to lock that down once we're on the other side of the >>>>> loader issue. >>>>> >>>>> We all come to this from different perspectives. Mine is a lot of scars >>>>> and lost time due to IScriptHost a year ago. Just about every LSL >>>>> commit required changing IScriptHost and adding back in functions for >>>>> SOP. Eventually, I just threw out IScriptHost, as it was clear that >>>>> interface was far too premature. >>>>> >>>>> I think we're a bit premature on IScene at this point. We know what we >>>>> all would do with it, but leaving the barn door open to other random >>>>> folks abusing the interfaces in ways that we didn't expect is probably >>>>> reasonable at this stage, so we make sure we don't lock off a piece of >>>>> function that's very reasonable to want. >>>>> >>>>> That being said, breaking Scene into more digestable parts would be a >>>>> *very good thing*. >>>> Definitely. I've spent quite some time moving things out of Scene myself. >>>> Much of what remains are the much more >>>> indigestible bits (e.g. land/terrain management, inventory). I plan to >>>> look at these in the course of my normal >>>> attempts to chip away at the big ball of mud but any help here would be >>>> much appreciated. >>>> >>>> Switching the region module mechanism seemed to me to be a good >>>> opportunity to introduce a Scene interface without >>>> causing a separate bout of pain later on. But on hearing some of the >>>> rational feedback, I accept that it could still be >>>> too early to do this. If people were to treat this interface as a >>>> contract they could build against, as Teravus pointed >>>> out, then it needs to be stable. >>>> >>>> Nonetheless, I'm seeing that with the exception of Melanie, the core >>>> developers who have posted are in favour of having >>>> an interface eventually (I presume before 1.0). So it is coming and if >>>> people have to endure some update pain later on, >>>> well that's the price of building against alpha code. It's not a huge >>>> upheaval either, in most cases it is simply a >>>> search and replace of Scene with IScene. When this happens later on I >>>> will point back at this discussion as warning. >>>> >>>> I'm quite happy to hear arguments against a scene interface, but I will >>>> forcefully counter and later ignore any attempt >>>> by Melanie to bully me off the point with completely exaggerated >>>> statements. We're here to discuss, negotiate and >>>> compromise in good faith, not to shout at each other across the mailing >>>> lists. >>>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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 > -- justincc Justin Clark-Casey http://justincc.wordpress.com _______________________________________________ Opensim-dev mailing list Opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev
