Smartest point made on the topic, and it really makes sense to stop conflating the two, there are distinct untrusted script and trusted plug-in problems. For client-side scripts to be something worth prioritizing implementing in mainstream viewers, their usage must be based on the assumption that some large percentage (80+% maybe) of attachment scripts, for example, would be running client-side, and possibly even allowing in-world objects to specify that specific scripts as meant to run viewer-side as well. The analogy would be that of web browsers, most of which have javascript enabled by default and any single browser user is downloading and running *thousands* of scripts over the course of a day with no awareness or explicit permission given. Getting a similar system to work in the viewer is a big problem in and of itself to solve, and the one that would have the most direct impact in the in-world experience of the most users in the shortest period of time. Plug-ins would be great, but then we get into the questions of the whole process of how installation works, is there an auto-installer ala IE or some form of manual mechanism that will be prone to user error. If there isn't a way that a very large number of users would have easy access to trusted plug-ins, it's hard to imagine it would be a highly prioritized feature.
On Thu, Feb 18, 2010 at 11:16 PM, Ricky <kf6...@gmail.com> wrote: > I suspect that there are two things being discussed here without > distinction: Client scripting, and client extensions. Confusing the two is > easy. > Client-side scripting SHOULD be sandboxed, and in a controlled set of > languages. For a close example think of javascript in web browsers. > Client extensions, or alternatively named as "plugins", would be modules > that can be plugged in and out of the client and run /as if/ they were a > part of the client. Think of browser add-ons/plugins/extensions. > Client side scripts could (read might be, could possibly, needs further > thought, etc.) be given permission to be loaded in by worn items > automatically. Other objects would likely need to request permission via a > security warning. > Client extensions would have to be downloaded and installed externally; not > delivered in-world. These would truly be programs on your computer, and > should be treated as such. > Just my thoughts hoping for a clearer discussion. > Ricky > Cron Stardust _______________________________________________ Policies and (un)subscribe information available here: http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/OpenSource-Dev Please read the policies before posting to keep unmoderated posting privileges