This in itself is a flawed assumption. While OpenSim is certainly not intended to be an SL clone, there has been *no* statement from core that Hypergrid is the one true way forward for the future - as far as I'm concerned it still has the status of an experimental architecture. Some people in core may see it as the future, others may yet to be convinced - we're at a very early stage. Core is not a homogenous group.
Ideally, one could argue that OpenSim would be entirely neutral as regards to architectures and environments. Every single module would be outside core, and people would use downstream OpenSim distributions instead (e.g. a 'Classic Second Life grid OpenSim', or a 'Next Generation Hypergrid OpenSim). Then those distributions could move forward with a single vision that their developers have all signed up to. However, pragmatically, the project is not mature or big enough for that to happen right now. In order to get critical mass there's a trade-off between the architectures built in to OpenSim and those which remain modular. Since there is a lot of interest in Hypergrid (and it may be the 'next generation web', whatever that is) then it's more valuable to have it within core than outside it. But equally there's still heavy usage of grid and standalone modes, and these are not disappearing any time soon. Melanie wrote: > Hello, > > you're basing your argument on a flawed assumption. > > OpenSim's purpose is NOT to be a SL clone. It is to be expected that > OpenSim will evolve away from the LL model in significant ways, > possibly even before 1.0. > > If your desire is to duplicate the LL grid, you can likely still do > it, and in the future you may need additional modules, which may be > on forge. > > Hypergrid is certainly core, because Hypergrid is what the core team > sees as the future. SL compatibility is still a focus, but is > largely understood as a stepping stone into the next generation web. > > Therefore, you may well find a "walled garden" forge module in the > future. > > Melanie > > > Mike Dickson wrote: >> Justin, thanks for clarifying the process. And I certainly understand >> the interest in Hypergrid and the energy behind it. Charles your message >> was also helpful in highlighting to me what is at the center of my >> concern. I agree the development process is somewhat chaotic and things >> get hacked in based on interest. That's probably completely to be >> expected though it may not make for the best platform going forward. >> >> Using Hypergrid as an example,my preference would be to do it outside of >> core. So let me explain that. Something like Hypergrid is going to >> require a different usage model from the original core (different >> protocols for "teleporting", now the exploration around inventory, etc). >> Rather than have the changes to handle that get introduced into core I'd >> have preferred to see something like an RFC that documents what is being >> proposed, and what "interfaces" need to be changed in order to >> accommodate the new use cases. That RFC gets iterated and the >> interfaces evolved to make "hypergrid" possible as a pluggable module. >> Over time most likely the set of commonly used modules grows and you >> ultimately end up with a core framework and a "core" set of modules that >> define what the out of the box functionality of an installation is >> (standalone, hypergrid, what have you). >> >> The obvious problem with this approach is that it requires evolving the >> core framework which is not nearly as "sexy" as hacking in new features. >> I've done both approaches. Certainly a cool demo can go a long way to >> sell a concept and often the change the framework process takes enough >> time that prototypes don't happen. It's more work to maintain a branched >> copy of core while you evolve your prototype into a set of changed >> interfaces that support it. Personally I believe that more disciplined >> approach is the key to seeing OpenSim get to 1.0. And ultimately be a >> better platform for experimentation. >> >> So I like the concept of hypergrid. I think prototypes like that need >> to exist if only to prove that the community is healthy. But I also >> believe that how the "framework" is defined and evolves is equally if >> not more important (to me at least). >> >> Just my 2 cents. >> >> Mike >> >> On Fri, 2009-04-17 at 15:35 +0000, Justin Clark-Casey wrote: >>> But I do have to also point out that OpenSim development is largely driven >>> by the interest of the developers (since >>> there's no single company behind it). If there's a lot of development >>> interest behind Hypergrid then this is the >>> direction that's inevitably going to progress most. If people coming along >>> contributing code that enhances different >>> architectures, then development will also be driven in that direction. >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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
