See my previous email about what changed.
We seem to have quite different concepts of what a standards process is.
In my book, a standards process is something that happens *after*
implementations exist, and preferably several competing ones; in the
people in VWRAP's book, it seems to mean "let's design something
together from scratch and on paper".
Let's see how well these two concepts can co-exist. Maybe they can't!
Meadhbh Hamrick wrote:
what's changed?
last year you (diva) seemed to have no interest in merging VWRAP with
Hypergrid. if i remember correctly, hypergrid was going to go off and
do an implementation while VWRAP went another way to try to
incrementally build a standard and some code to implement it.
there's still, of course, room for you at the table. but if i remember
correctly, you seemed to have problems with LLSD/LLIDL (now about to
get renamed DSD) and you had a security model that didn't work with
zha's use cases.
if you're interested in making the case for why VWRAP should adopt the
hypergrid security model and drop DSD, you're welcome to participate
in the VWRAP mailing list.
and i encourage you to actually do so before dropping a spec on the group.
-cheers
-meadhbh
--
meadhbh hamrick * it's pronounced "maeve"
@OhMeadhbh * http://meadhbh.org/ * [email protected]
On Sun, Aug 29, 2010 at 5:29 PM, <[email protected]> wrote:
Melanie is just right, as usual... well, as in 90% of the time :)
The cacheable_data was a brilliant idea, and if you had experience with
OpenSim in the wild, in how volatile these worlds are and how much these
particular remote lookups lag the sims, you would come to appreciate it,
instead of being put off by her dominatrix attitude.
OpenSim core has been contributing center-front in VWRAP: John Hurliman is a
core developer of OpenSim.
Mike Dickson wrote:
That's great to hear. And the first I've heard of it. I'm on the VWRAP
mailing list and yes, John has made some very substantive contributions
to the discussion. I haven't seen anything from OpenSim core during any
part of the discussion to date. I'm a pretty smart guy but not
omnipotent. I've simply interpreted the lack of participation as lack
of interest and past comments would tend to support that (I can dig them
out if you like). And there is no "general feeling" in VWRAP as to your
proposal since its never been presented or discussed there.
I'm not interested in a war, just open dialog and a sincere interest in
interoperability. I'll be glad to read the proposal when its made. In
the meantime I'd appreciate you not attribute negative motives to
anything I've said. I've been simply trying to make technical arguments
against an approach I think is wrong headed and not though out. I've
seen discussion here pretty much get cut off when a core member
"dictates" the solution. Melanie seems to have made up her mind. Fine.
Go build it. Best of luck to you. In the meantime I'll look forward to
the Hypergrid proposal to VWRAP and reserve my comments for that time.
BTW, I've found the VWRAP discussions to be pretty open and devoid of
politics. People will assert politics over almost anything of course
but the dialog has been mostly open and good natured (and quiet lately).
It will be good to have you at the table. Given OpenSim gets a fair bit
of attention it would have been nice if you'd been there all along.
Mike
On Mon, 2010-08-30 at 00:00 +0000, [email protected] wrote:
Mike,
That's an interesting statement to make, considering that John Hurliman
and I are working on writing up the *working* Hypergrid 1.5 as a proposal to
VWRAP, since we have both concluded that the concepts being talked there
lately, without any implementation behind them, are essentially
indistinguishable from the working HG 1.5 that lots of people are already
using.
It seems that you are trying really hard to make this look like a war
between OpenSimulator and VWRAP. I don't think that's the general feeling in
VWRAP, I think it's just you. The proposal to VWRAP will happen. Hopefully,
most people there will be able to assess the technical issues, independent
of the political ones. (emphasis on *hopefully*)
Diva / Crista
Mike Dickson wrote:
Fine, then do what you like. The code's all available. If I don't like
it I can change it. Of course that sort of shoots holes in
interoperability. But then I didn't feel that hyper-grid belonged in
core either for the same reason.
I think you've way over trivialized the whole set of interactions
between agent, asset and simulator services in situations where those
services are defined by different principals. As Meadbh said, this
feels like optimizing to solve a specific problem before you've really
looked at the larger issues. It might be instructive just to simply walk
through some use cases and see where things fall apart. Alot of that
discussion has already taken place on the VWRAP list but OpenSim core
seems to be dead set against involvement in that.
I don't see a way to contribute here beyond the opinion I've already
voiced so I'll drop this.
Mike
On Sun, 2010-08-29 at 22:56 +0000, Melanie wrote:
Sorry, i disagree. The information included is defined by the
REQUIRED data on the recipient, not on what data the sender wants to
provide. the recipient NEEDS a displayable field. It can't be optional.
Melanie
Mike Dickson wrote:
If the decision is to go ahead and do cache-able data then I'd agree,
do
it as attribute NVP's and make them optional. The originating agennt
service is then free to define the semantics of the attributes it
exposes.
Mike
On Sun, 2010-08-29 at 21:42 +0000, Ai Austin wrote:
From: [email protected]
protocol://authority/resource_type/resource_id[/cacheable_data]
+1
consider ensuring that at least the name is provided in a form that
can be resolved fast and locally by including the avatar firstname+lastname
- in whatever form the providing grid wishes to address issues raised by
others - so long as the strings are "legal" in the creator/owner fields.
would it be worth making sure that the "cachable data" is in the form
of keyword=value pairs, and hence put in a "parameter" form after ? rather
than a final /?
protocol://authority/resource_type/resource_id[?key_value_pair[,...]]
with a minimum suggested (or required?)
avatarname=firstname+lastname if the resource_type = user
_______________________________________________
Opensim-dev mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev
_______________________________________________
Opensim-dev mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev
_______________________________________________
Opensim-dev mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev
_______________________________________________
Opensim-dev mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev
_______________________________________________
Opensim-dev mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev
_______________________________________________
Opensim-dev mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev
_______________________________________________
Opensim-dev mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev
