Re: [Opensim-dev] Deprecate OpenSim.Grid.InventoryServer and OpenSim.Grid.AssetServer?

[Dr Scofield]

Melanie wrote:
> Charles, I said documentation is on it's way. I would like to get 
> people's opinions on moving forward with deprecating the old 
> servers, not people's opinions on the obvious need for documentation.
> 
> Further, if the old servers are kept, they will have to be 
> maintained indefinitely and so will the protocols, blocking any real 
> progress. So, could you please explain your -1?

have to agree with charles, so -1 from me as long as the documentation is 
absent.

-- 
dr dirk husemann  virtual worlds research  ibm zurich research lab
SL: dr scofield  drscofi...@xyzzyxyzzy.net  http://xyzzyxyzzy.net/
RL: h...@zurich.ibm.com - +41 44 724 8573 - http://www.zurich.ibm.com/~hud/
___
Opensim-dev mailing list
Opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de
https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev

[Opensim-dev] Visual Studio 2005 support

[Jeff Ames]

Hello,

Back in April there was a proposal to drop support for VS 2005 after
0.6.5.  Since we're now at 0.6.6, can we go ahead and do the
runprebuild.bat switch, and remove the proposal from the wiki?

Jeff
___
Opensim-dev mailing list
Opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de
https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev

Re: [Opensim-dev] Deprecate OpenSim.Grid.InventoryServer and OpenSim.Grid.AssetServer?

[John Sheridan]

Not to butt in but, I kind of like the name B.U.S.T.  It has sort of a 
maternal ring to it which is suiting to a core set of servers.  But then 
again, I'm also the guy that came up with such weird acronyms as QUADRES 
for Quick Usable and Dirty Report Execution System.  :P

Thanks, :)

 - John

Toni Alatalo wrote:
> On Jul 8, 2009, at 7:51 PM, Sean Hennessee wrote:
>
>   
>> MW wrote:
>> 
>>> I also would rather a different name than BUST, and also before any
>>>   
>> How about BOSS? Basic Open Simulator Servers?
>> 
>
> nice acronym - perhaps too JBoss-y a name though, and it being also a 
> server framework (the open source j2ee thing) is a little bit close.
>
> i don't mind BUST, but it's not a huge matter i think anyways.
>
>   
>> ~Sean
>> 
>
> ~Toni
>
> ___
> 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

Re: [Opensim-dev] Deprecate OpenSim.Grid.InventoryServer and OpenSim.Grid.AssetServer?

[Len Brown]

On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 11:51 AM, Sean Hennessee  wrote:

>
> How about BOSS? Basic Open Simulator Servers?
>
> ~Sean
>
> NOO!  I work for BOSS...  Bayou Oilfield Service & Supply.  No kidding,
I really do work for them.  I just had to laugh when I saw BOSS and realized
that's OUR logo (well, one of a couple businesses I work for anyway).  Not
that you could trademark an abbreviation...  Or could you?

http://www.bayouoilfield.com/

- Len
___
Opensim-dev mailing list
Opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de
https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev

Re: [Opensim-dev] Deprecate OpenSim.Grid.InventoryServer and OpenSim.Grid.AssetServer?

[Melanie]

Hi,

MW wrote:
> Well my vote is that the new protocol is documented before it goes into 
> trunk. There is no reason that the protocol can't be designed before it is 
> implemented.

The specification itself is a moving target that needs commnity input.

> But anyway if its not documented then my vote would be -1 on it going into 
> trunk. Even if it was a optional extra, it would still lead to confusion and 
> disruption among other things.

More disruptive things have been done to trun routinely. What 
happened to "trunk is upoosed to be broken"? This won't even break 
trunk.

> Something as big as a new protocol does need some design rather than just 
> flying into implementing it and seeing how it turns out. 

I think that is precisely the wrong way. In my experience, drawing 
board work leads to overengineering.

Melanie
___
Opensim-dev mailing list
Opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de
https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev

Re: [Opensim-dev] Deprecate OpenSim.Grid.InventoryServer and OpenSim.Grid.AssetServer?

[Melanie]

Firstly, the acclaim is for the connector/services architecture. Not 
any new protocol. There isn't one yet.

Secondly, this can't be developed on a drawing board. It needs 
community testing and input. It needs to grow. Asking for full 
documentation ahead of implementation is the same as killing it.

Thirdly,  it's not "my plan" in my head. It's actually a 
collaboration between myself and Diva that has been going on for 
quite some time already.

Why is this being sidetracked into discussing things that haven't 
happened, aren't even close to happening?

The question was simple (and sorry for the emphasis, but I think 
it's needed):

IS THERE A BASIC UNDERSTANDING AND AGREEMENT ABOUT REMOVING THE OLD 
STYLE,  MONOLITHIC, SERVERS IF AND WHEN A SUITABLE AND COMPATIBLE 
REPLACEMENT IS READY?

That was all I asked for. Nothing more. Nothing less.

Melanie
MW wrote:
> Where are all these remarks of  great acclaim? This is the first I've heard 
> about a new protocol being designed without any plan at all. 
> 
> I'm all for a new protocol but there needs to be a design and peer review. 
> Please stop adding any more work on a new protocol to the trunk until that 
> process can take place. As my vote is -1 (and consider it a veto vote) on 
> just writing it from a plan in your head when no one else knows what that 
> plan is. 
> 
> --- On Wed, 8/7/09, Melanie  wrote:
> 
> From: Melanie 
> Subject: Re: [Opensim-dev] Deprecate OpenSim.Grid.InventoryServer and 
> OpenSim.Grid.AssetServer?
> To: opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de
> Date: Wednesday, 8 July, 2009, 11:42 PM
> 
> It doesn't need to be segregated. This can be done in trunk 
> perfectly well. We have had bad experiences with branches and I 
> believe there is a general aversion to them now.
> 
> There is no need to push this outside of the core scope, especially 
> since it's already well underway. This whole discussion has been 
> totally sidetracked, questioning the project as a whole, a project 
> that has won great acclaim from my fellow core members and was, 
> among others, called "long overdue" and "badly needed".
> 
> This entire thread came from me trying to ascertain the fundamental 
> willingness to remove the monolithic servers _at some point_.
> 
> Melanie
> 
> 
> Gryc Ueusp wrote:
>> This is what branches are for.
>> 
>> Melanie wrote:
>>> This can not be reasonably done on the forge..
>>>
>>> Melanie
>>>
>>> Charles Krinke wrote:
>>>   
 Sounds like a good argument to put this new work on the forge.

 That way, we can get it wrung out, completed, functional, tested. 

 This seems to me a reasonable and proper way to change the underlying grid 
 servers without having a revolution in mid-air.

 Charles




 
 From: Melanie 
 To: opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de
 Sent: Wednesday, July 8, 2009 2:51:39 PM
 Subject: Re: [Opensim-dev] Deprecate OpenSim.Grid.InventoryServer and 
 OpenSim.Grid.AssetServer?

 Which is precisely what is intended. But the old dinosaur servers 
 are in the way.

 You can rest assured no grids will be harmed in the making of these 
 servers - to paraphrase the movie industry

 Melanie

 Charles Krinke wrote:
 
> I believe it is pretty important to ensure that we go forwards in a 
> compatible manner and not backwards.
>
> Certainly new implementations of servers, executables, protocols and the 
> like are encouraged, but we also need to make sure that everything 
> continues to work.
>
> Perhaps this new work should be on the forge. Perhaps it should be done 
> in such a way that the users can ultimately determine which server is 
> appropriate in a similar manner to differing physics implementations.
>
> But, regardless, I believe that moving forward in a compatible manner and 
> making sure we dont shoot ourselves in the foot is very important. I 
> would counsel caution *and* I would counsel some independent testing to 
> make sure we are moving forward in a predictable manner.
>
> Charles
>
>
>
>
> 
> From: Melanie 
> To: opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de
> Sent: Wednesday, July 8, 2009 2:43:17 PM
> Subject: Re: [Opensim-dev] Deprecate OpenSim.Grid.InventoryServer and 
> OpenSim.Grid.AssetServer?
>
> This is not going to happen on the drawing board. It can't. And also 
> it would be taking the second step before the first.
>
> First, the existing protocols are converted to services, as it has 
> already happened to asset and inventory services. Those can then run 
> in B.U.S.T. with full compatibility.
>
> Then the old server needs to go away. At this point one code base 
> has been replaced with another one without protocol changes.
>
> This creates a scenario where new protocols can be dev

Re: [Opensim-dev] Deprecate OpenSim.Grid.InventoryServer and OpenSim.Grid.AssetServer?

[MW]

Where are all these remarks of  great acclaim? This is the first I've heard 
about a new protocol being designed without any plan at all. 

I'm all for a new protocol but there needs to be a design and peer review. 
Please stop adding any more work on a new protocol to the trunk until that 
process can take place. As my vote is -1 (and consider it a veto vote) on just 
writing it from a plan in your head when no one else knows what that plan is. 

--- On Wed, 8/7/09, Melanie  wrote:

From: Melanie 
Subject: Re: [Opensim-dev] Deprecate OpenSim.Grid.InventoryServer and 
OpenSim.Grid.AssetServer?
To: opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de
Date: Wednesday, 8 July, 2009, 11:42 PM

It doesn't need to be segregated. This can be done in trunk 
perfectly well. We have had bad experiences with branches and I 
believe there is a general aversion to them now.

There is no need to push this outside of the core scope, especially 
since it's already well underway. This whole discussion has been 
totally sidetracked, questioning the project as a whole, a project 
that has won great acclaim from my fellow core members and was, 
among others, called "long overdue" and "badly needed".

This entire thread came from me trying to ascertain the fundamental 
willingness to remove the monolithic servers _at some point_.

Melanie


Gryc Ueusp wrote:
> This is what branches are for.
> 
> Melanie wrote:
>> This can not be reasonably done on the forge..
>>
>> Melanie
>>
>> Charles Krinke wrote:
>>   
>>> Sounds like a good argument to put this new work on the forge.
>>>
>>> That way, we can get it wrung out, completed, functional, tested. 
>>>
>>> This seems to me a reasonable and proper way to change the underlying grid 
>>> servers without having a revolution in mid-air.
>>>
>>> Charles
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 
>>> From: Melanie 
>>> To: opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de
>>> Sent: Wednesday, July 8, 2009 2:51:39 PM
>>> Subject: Re: [Opensim-dev] Deprecate OpenSim.Grid.InventoryServer and 
>>> OpenSim.Grid.AssetServer?
>>>
>>> Which is precisely what is intended. But the old dinosaur servers 
>>> are in the way.
>>>
>>> You can rest assured no grids will be harmed in the making of these 
>>> servers - to paraphrase the movie industry
>>>
>>> Melanie
>>>
>>> Charles Krinke wrote:
>>>     
 I believe it is pretty important to ensure that we go forwards in a 
 compatible manner and not backwards.

 Certainly new implementations of servers, executables, protocols and the 
 like are encouraged, but we also need to make sure that everything 
 continues to work.

 Perhaps this new work should be on the forge. Perhaps it should be done in 
 such a way that the users can ultimately determine which server is 
 appropriate in a similar manner to differing physics implementations.

 But, regardless, I believe that moving forward in a compatible manner and 
 making sure we dont shoot ourselves in the foot is very important. I would 
 counsel caution *and* I would counsel some independent testing to make 
 sure we are moving forward in a predictable manner.

 Charles




 
 From: Melanie 
 To: opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de
 Sent: Wednesday, July 8, 2009 2:43:17 PM
 Subject: Re: [Opensim-dev] Deprecate OpenSim.Grid.InventoryServer and 
 OpenSim.Grid.AssetServer?

 This is not going to happen on the drawing board. It can't. And also 
 it would be taking the second step before the first.

 First, the existing protocols are converted to services, as it has 
 already happened to asset and inventory services. Those can then run 
 in B.U.S.T. with full compatibility.

 Then the old server needs to go away. At this point one code base 
 has been replaced with another one without protocol changes.

 This creates a scenario where new protocols can be developed and 
 tested without breaking things. Here the protocols will evolve as 
 they are coded.

 Finally, the new protocols will replace the old, after they have 
 been tested and used in production by early adopters.

 Melanie

 MW wrote:
       
> Well as Justin said, there needs to be plans/documents detailing all the 
> details of the replacement protocols before the process of replacing them 
> is began.
>
> --- On Wed, 8/7/09, Melanie  wrote:
>
> From: Melanie 
> Subject: Re: [Opensim-dev] Deprecate OpenSim.Grid.InventoryServer and 
> OpenSim.Grid.AssetServer?
> To: opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de
> Date: Wednesday, 8 July, 2009, 9:08 PM
>
> Hi,
>
> Justin Clark-Casey wrote:
>         
>> But the real question was about your statement
>>
>> "But changes are planned as we are moving to more sane protocols."
>>
>> source: 
>> https://lists.berlios.de/pipermail/opensim-dev/2009-Ju

Re: [Opensim-dev] Deprecate OpenSim.Grid.InventoryServer and OpenSim.Grid.AssetServer?

[MW]

Well my vote is that the new protocol is documented before it goes into trunk. 
There is no reason that the protocol can't be designed before it is implemented.

But anyway if its not documented then my vote would be -1 on it going into 
trunk. Even if it was a optional extra, it would still lead to confusion and 
disruption among other things.

Something as big as a new protocol does need some design rather than just 
flying into implementing it and seeing how it turns out. 

So I believe it is either designed and that plan is published on the mailing 
list/wiki and then after a review, work can start on implementing it or it goes 
into a branch and then after it is finished, it can be documented and then a 
review of it is carried out before it is decided if it goes into trunk.

--- On Wed, 8/7/09, Melanie  wrote:

From: Melanie 
Subject: Re: [Opensim-dev] Deprecate OpenSim.Grid.InventoryServer and 
OpenSim.Grid.AssetServer?
To: opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de
Date: Wednesday, 8 July, 2009, 11:42 PM

It doesn't need to be segregated. This can be done in trunk 
perfectly well. We have had bad experiences with branches and I 
believe there is a general aversion to them now.

There is no need to push this outside of the core scope, especially 
since it's already well underway. This whole discussion has been 
totally sidetracked, questioning the project as a whole, a project 
that has won great acclaim from my fellow core members and was, 
among others, called "long overdue" and "badly needed".

This entire thread came from me trying to ascertain the fundamental 
willingness to remove the monolithic servers _at some point_.

Melanie


Gryc Ueusp wrote:
> This is what branches are for.
> 
> Melanie wrote:
>> This can not be reasonably done on the forge..
>>
>> Melanie
>>
>> Charles Krinke wrote:
>>   
>>> Sounds like a good argument to put this new work on the forge.
>>>
>>> That way, we can get it wrung out, completed, functional, tested. 
>>>
>>> This seems to me a reasonable and proper way to change the underlying grid 
>>> servers without having a revolution in mid-air.
>>>
>>> Charles
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 
>>> From: Melanie 
>>> To: opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de
>>> Sent: Wednesday, July 8, 2009 2:51:39 PM
>>> Subject: Re: [Opensim-dev] Deprecate OpenSim.Grid.InventoryServer and 
>>> OpenSim.Grid.AssetServer?
>>>
>>> Which is precisely what is intended. But the old dinosaur servers 
>>> are in the way.
>>>
>>> You can rest assured no grids will be harmed in the making of these 
>>> servers - to paraphrase the movie industry
>>>
>>> Melanie
>>>
>>> Charles Krinke wrote:
>>>     
 I believe it is pretty important to ensure that we go forwards in a 
 compatible manner and not backwards.

 Certainly new implementations of servers, executables, protocols and the 
 like are encouraged, but we also need to make sure that everything 
 continues to work.

 Perhaps this new work should be on the forge. Perhaps it should be done in 
 such a way that the users can ultimately determine which server is 
 appropriate in a similar manner to differing physics implementations.

 But, regardless, I believe that moving forward in a compatible manner and 
 making sure we dont shoot ourselves in the foot is very important. I would 
 counsel caution *and* I would counsel some independent testing to make 
 sure we are moving forward in a predictable manner.

 Charles




 
 From: Melanie 
 To: opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de
 Sent: Wednesday, July 8, 2009 2:43:17 PM
 Subject: Re: [Opensim-dev] Deprecate OpenSim.Grid.InventoryServer and 
 OpenSim.Grid.AssetServer?

 This is not going to happen on the drawing board. It can't. And also 
 it would be taking the second step before the first.

 First, the existing protocols are converted to services, as it has 
 already happened to asset and inventory services. Those can then run 
 in B.U.S.T. with full compatibility.

 Then the old server needs to go away. At this point one code base 
 has been replaced with another one without protocol changes.

 This creates a scenario where new protocols can be developed and 
 tested without breaking things. Here the protocols will evolve as 
 they are coded.

 Finally, the new protocols will replace the old, after they have 
 been tested and used in production by early adopters.

 Melanie

 MW wrote:
       
> Well as Justin said, there needs to be plans/documents detailing all the 
> details of the replacement protocols before the process of replacing them 
> is began.
>
> --- On Wed, 8/7/09, Melanie  wrote:
>
> From: Melanie 
> Subject: Re: [Opensim-dev] Deprecate OpenSim.Grid.InventoryServer and 
> OpenSim.Grid.AssetServer?
> To: opensim-dev@lists.berl

Re: [Opensim-dev] Deprecate OpenSim.Grid.InventoryServer and OpenSim.Grid.AssetServer?

[Melanie]

It doesn't need to be segregated. This can be done in trunk 
perfectly well. We have had bad experiences with branches and I 
believe there is a general aversion to them now.

There is no need to push this outside of the core scope, especially 
since it's already well underway. This whole discussion has been 
totally sidetracked, questioning the project as a whole, a project 
that has won great acclaim from my fellow core members and was, 
among others, called "long overdue" and "badly needed".

This entire thread came from me trying to ascertain the fundamental 
willingness to remove the monolithic servers _at some point_.

Melanie


Gryc Ueusp wrote:
> This is what branches are for.
> 
> Melanie wrote:
>> This can not be reasonably done on the forge..
>>
>> Melanie
>>
>> Charles Krinke wrote:
>>   
>>> Sounds like a good argument to put this new work on the forge.
>>>
>>> That way, we can get it wrung out, completed, functional, tested. 
>>>
>>> This seems to me a reasonable and proper way to change the underlying grid 
>>> servers without having a revolution in mid-air.
>>>
>>> Charles
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 
>>> From: Melanie 
>>> To: opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de
>>> Sent: Wednesday, July 8, 2009 2:51:39 PM
>>> Subject: Re: [Opensim-dev] Deprecate OpenSim.Grid.InventoryServer and 
>>> OpenSim.Grid.AssetServer?
>>>
>>> Which is precisely what is intended. But the old dinosaur servers 
>>> are in the way.
>>>
>>> You can rest assured no grids will be harmed in the making of these 
>>> servers - to paraphrase the movie industry
>>>
>>> Melanie
>>>
>>> Charles Krinke wrote:
>>> 
 I believe it is pretty important to ensure that we go forwards in a 
 compatible manner and not backwards.

 Certainly new implementations of servers, executables, protocols and the 
 like are encouraged, but we also need to make sure that everything 
 continues to work.

 Perhaps this new work should be on the forge. Perhaps it should be done in 
 such a way that the users can ultimately determine which server is 
 appropriate in a similar manner to differing physics implementations.

 But, regardless, I believe that moving forward in a compatible manner and 
 making sure we dont shoot ourselves in the foot is very important. I would 
 counsel caution *and* I would counsel some independent testing to make 
 sure we are moving forward in a predictable manner.

 Charles




 
 From: Melanie 
 To: opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de
 Sent: Wednesday, July 8, 2009 2:43:17 PM
 Subject: Re: [Opensim-dev] Deprecate OpenSim.Grid.InventoryServer and 
 OpenSim.Grid.AssetServer?

 This is not going to happen on the drawing board. It can't. And also 
 it would be taking the second step before the first.

 First, the existing protocols are converted to services, as it has 
 already happened to asset and inventory services. Those can then run 
 in B.U.S.T. with full compatibility.

 Then the old server needs to go away. At this point one code base 
 has been replaced with another one without protocol changes.

 This creates a scenario where new protocols can be developed and 
 tested without breaking things. Here the protocols will evolve as 
 they are coded.

 Finally, the new protocols will replace the old, after they have 
 been tested and used in production by early adopters.

 Melanie

 MW wrote:
   
> Well as Justin said, there needs to be plans/documents detailing all the 
> details of the replacement protocols before the process of replacing them 
> is began.
>
> --- On Wed, 8/7/09, Melanie  wrote:
>
> From: Melanie 
> Subject: Re: [Opensim-dev] Deprecate OpenSim.Grid.InventoryServer and 
> OpenSim.Grid.AssetServer?
> To: opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de
> Date: Wednesday, 8 July, 2009, 9:08 PM
>
> Hi,
>
> Justin Clark-Casey wrote:
> 
>> But the real question was about your statement
>>
>> "But changes are planned as we are moving to more sane protocols."
>>
>> source: 
>> https://lists.berlios.de/pipermail/opensim-dev/2009-July/006992.html
>>
>> Who is the 'we' in this?  What are these protocols?  Why are they more 
>> sane, etc., etc.?  This is an entirely different 
>> question to generalizing the OpenSim grid servers.  Perhaps they were 
>> not meant to be mixed up in this.
>>   
> "We" is all of us, the project, for one, and Diva and I as the devs 
> driving this change, too.
>
> Today's wire protocols are not sane. There is no point in 
> transferring ALL the user's inventory to EVERY region visited, just 
> to get the root folder ID, which is the only thing needed from that 
> potentially HUGE blob.
>
> Just to men

Re: [Opensim-dev] Deprecate OpenSim.Grid.InventoryServer and OpenSim.Grid.AssetServer?

[Mike Dickson]

I'm glad someone besides me said that...

Mike

On Wed, 2009-07-08 at 22:26 +, Gryc Ueusp wrote:
> This is what branches are for.
> 
> Melanie wrote:
> > This can not be reasonably done on the forge..
> >
> > Melanie
> >


___
Opensim-dev mailing list
Opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de
https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev

Re: [Opensim-dev] Deprecate OpenSim.Grid.InventoryServer and OpenSim.Grid.AssetServer?

[Gryc Ueusp]

This is what branches are for.

Melanie wrote:
> This can not be reasonably done on the forge..
>
> Melanie
>
> Charles Krinke wrote:
>   
>> Sounds like a good argument to put this new work on the forge.
>>
>> That way, we can get it wrung out, completed, functional, tested. 
>>
>> This seems to me a reasonable and proper way to change the underlying grid 
>> servers without having a revolution in mid-air.
>>
>> Charles
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> 
>> From: Melanie 
>> To: opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de
>> Sent: Wednesday, July 8, 2009 2:51:39 PM
>> Subject: Re: [Opensim-dev] Deprecate OpenSim.Grid.InventoryServer and 
>> OpenSim.Grid.AssetServer?
>>
>> Which is precisely what is intended. But the old dinosaur servers 
>> are in the way.
>>
>> You can rest assured no grids will be harmed in the making of these 
>> servers - to paraphrase the movie industry
>>
>> Melanie
>>
>> Charles Krinke wrote:
>> 
>>> I believe it is pretty important to ensure that we go forwards in a 
>>> compatible manner and not backwards.
>>>
>>> Certainly new implementations of servers, executables, protocols and the 
>>> like are encouraged, but we also need to make sure that everything 
>>> continues to work.
>>>
>>> Perhaps this new work should be on the forge. Perhaps it should be done in 
>>> such a way that the users can ultimately determine which server is 
>>> appropriate in a similar manner to differing physics implementations.
>>>
>>> But, regardless, I believe that moving forward in a compatible manner and 
>>> making sure we dont shoot ourselves in the foot is very important. I would 
>>> counsel caution *and* I would counsel some independent testing to make sure 
>>> we are moving forward in a predictable manner.
>>>
>>> Charles
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 
>>> From: Melanie 
>>> To: opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de
>>> Sent: Wednesday, July 8, 2009 2:43:17 PM
>>> Subject: Re: [Opensim-dev] Deprecate OpenSim.Grid.InventoryServer and 
>>> OpenSim.Grid.AssetServer?
>>>
>>> This is not going to happen on the drawing board. It can't. And also 
>>> it would be taking the second step before the first.
>>>
>>> First, the existing protocols are converted to services, as it has 
>>> already happened to asset and inventory services. Those can then run 
>>> in B.U.S.T. with full compatibility.
>>>
>>> Then the old server needs to go away. At this point one code base 
>>> has been replaced with another one without protocol changes.
>>>
>>> This creates a scenario where new protocols can be developed and 
>>> tested without breaking things. Here the protocols will evolve as 
>>> they are coded.
>>>
>>> Finally, the new protocols will replace the old, after they have 
>>> been tested and used in production by early adopters.
>>>
>>> Melanie
>>>
>>> MW wrote:
>>>   
 Well as Justin said, there needs to be plans/documents detailing all the 
 details of the replacement protocols before the process of replacing them 
 is began.

 --- On Wed, 8/7/09, Melanie  wrote:

 From: Melanie 
 Subject: Re: [Opensim-dev] Deprecate OpenSim.Grid.InventoryServer and 
 OpenSim.Grid.AssetServer?
 To: opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de
 Date: Wednesday, 8 July, 2009, 9:08 PM

 Hi,

 Justin Clark-Casey wrote:
 
> But the real question was about your statement
>
> "But changes are planned as we are moving to more sane protocols."
>
> source: 
> https://lists.berlios.de/pipermail/opensim-dev/2009-July/006992.html
>
> Who is the 'we' in this?  What are these protocols?  Why are they more 
> sane, etc., etc.?  This is an entirely different 
> question to generalizing the OpenSim grid servers.  Perhaps they were not 
> meant to be mixed up in this.
>   
 "We" is all of us, the project, for one, and Diva and I as the devs 
 driving this change, too.

 Today's wire protocols are not sane. There is no point in 
 transferring ALL the user's inventory to EVERY region visited, just 
 to get the root folder ID, which is the only thing needed from that 
 potentially HUGE blob.

 Just to mention one known bit of insanity.

 Another part that is not sane is the user services. They aren't 
 natively equipped to handle the concept of no authentication or HG, 
 or user levels, or scopes. They mix in data items that don't belong 
 together just because Linden did.

 Assets were already made RESTful and so the asset protocol was 
 preserved unchanged.
 The grid server protocol is a lean one and changes will be minimal 
 (probably just a XMLRPC->REST conversion if they're not REST already)

 Presence is totally insane again. It needs to be ripped out and 
 redone, now that we know more about real world demands large grids 
 place on the servers.

 With the modular architecture, that is a simple as snapping i

Re: [Opensim-dev] Deprecate OpenSim.Grid.InventoryServer and OpenSim.Grid.AssetServer?

[Melanie]

This can not be reasonably done on the forge..

Melanie

Charles Krinke wrote:
> Sounds like a good argument to put this new work on the forge.
> 
> That way, we can get it wrung out, completed, functional, tested. 
> 
> This seems to me a reasonable and proper way to change the underlying grid 
> servers without having a revolution in mid-air.
> 
> Charles
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From: Melanie 
> To: opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de
> Sent: Wednesday, July 8, 2009 2:51:39 PM
> Subject: Re: [Opensim-dev] Deprecate OpenSim.Grid.InventoryServer and 
> OpenSim.Grid.AssetServer?
> 
> Which is precisely what is intended. But the old dinosaur servers 
> are in the way.
> 
> You can rest assured no grids will be harmed in the making of these 
> servers - to paraphrase the movie industry
> 
> Melanie
> 
> Charles Krinke wrote:
>> I believe it is pretty important to ensure that we go forwards in a 
>> compatible manner and not backwards.
>> 
>> Certainly new implementations of servers, executables, protocols and the 
>> like are encouraged, but we also need to make sure that everything continues 
>> to work.
>> 
>> Perhaps this new work should be on the forge. Perhaps it should be done in 
>> such a way that the users can ultimately determine which server is 
>> appropriate in a similar manner to differing physics implementations.
>> 
>> But, regardless, I believe that moving forward in a compatible manner and 
>> making sure we dont shoot ourselves in the foot is very important. I would 
>> counsel caution *and* I would counsel some independent testing to make sure 
>> we are moving forward in a predictable manner.
>> 
>> Charles
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> From: Melanie 
>> To: opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de
>> Sent: Wednesday, July 8, 2009 2:43:17 PM
>> Subject: Re: [Opensim-dev] Deprecate OpenSim.Grid.InventoryServer and 
>> OpenSim.Grid.AssetServer?
>> 
>> This is not going to happen on the drawing board. It can't. And also 
>> it would be taking the second step before the first.
>> 
>> First, the existing protocols are converted to services, as it has 
>> already happened to asset and inventory services. Those can then run 
>> in B.U.S.T. with full compatibility.
>> 
>> Then the old server needs to go away. At this point one code base 
>> has been replaced with another one without protocol changes.
>> 
>> This creates a scenario where new protocols can be developed and 
>> tested without breaking things. Here the protocols will evolve as 
>> they are coded.
>> 
>> Finally, the new protocols will replace the old, after they have 
>> been tested and used in production by early adopters.
>> 
>> Melanie
>> 
>> MW wrote:
>>> Well as Justin said, there needs to be plans/documents detailing all the 
>>> details of the replacement protocols before the process of replacing them 
>>> is began.
>>> 
>>> --- On Wed, 8/7/09, Melanie  wrote:
>>> 
>>> From: Melanie 
>>> Subject: Re: [Opensim-dev] Deprecate OpenSim.Grid.InventoryServer and 
>>> OpenSim.Grid.AssetServer?
>>> To: opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de
>>> Date: Wednesday, 8 July, 2009, 9:08 PM
>>> 
>>> Hi,
>>> 
>>> Justin Clark-Casey wrote:
 But the real question was about your statement
 
 "But changes are planned as we are moving to more sane protocols."
 
 source: 
 https://lists.berlios.de/pipermail/opensim-dev/2009-July/006992.html
 
 Who is the 'we' in this?  What are these protocols?  Why are they more 
 sane, etc., etc.?  This is an entirely different 
 question to generalizing the OpenSim grid servers.  Perhaps they were not 
 meant to be mixed up in this.
>>> 
>>> "We" is all of us, the project, for one, and Diva and I as the devs 
>>> driving this change, too.
>>> 
>>> Today's wire protocols are not sane. There is no point in 
>>> transferring ALL the user's inventory to EVERY region visited, just 
>>> to get the root folder ID, which is the only thing needed from that 
>>> potentially HUGE blob.
>>> 
>>> Just to mention one known bit of insanity.
>>> 
>>> Another part that is not sane is the user services. They aren't 
>>> natively equipped to handle the concept of no authentication or HG, 
>>> or user levels, or scopes. They mix in data items that don't belong 
>>> together just because Linden did.
>>> 
>>> Assets were already made RESTful and so the asset protocol was 
>>> preserved unchanged.
>>> The grid server protocol is a lean one and changes will be minimal 
>>> (probably just a XMLRPC->REST conversion if they're not REST already)
>>> 
>>> Presence is totally insane again. It needs to be ripped out and 
>>> redone, now that we know more about real world demands large grids 
>>> place on the servers.
>>> 
>>> With the modular architecture, that is a simple as snapping in 
>>> another connector. so if your grid uses a new RESTful gridserver 
>>> protocol, you just use the RESTGridConnector rather than the 
>>> XMLLRPCGridConnector. The service providers and co

Re: [Opensim-dev] Deprecate OpenSim.Grid.InventoryServer and OpenSim.Grid.AssetServer?

[Charles Krinke]

Sounds like a good argument to put this new work on the forge.

That way, we can get it wrung out, completed, functional, tested. 

This seems to me a reasonable and proper way to change the underlying grid 
servers without having a revolution in mid-air.

Charles





From: Melanie 
To: opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de
Sent: Wednesday, July 8, 2009 2:51:39 PM
Subject: Re: [Opensim-dev] Deprecate OpenSim.Grid.InventoryServer and 
OpenSim.Grid.AssetServer?

Which is precisely what is intended. But the old dinosaur servers 
are in the way.

You can rest assured no grids will be harmed in the making of these 
servers - to paraphrase the movie industry

Melanie

Charles Krinke wrote:
> I believe it is pretty important to ensure that we go forwards in a 
> compatible manner and not backwards.
> 
> Certainly new implementations of servers, executables, protocols and the like 
> are encouraged, but we also need to make sure that everything continues to 
> work.
> 
> Perhaps this new work should be on the forge. Perhaps it should be done in 
> such a way that the users can ultimately determine which server is 
> appropriate in a similar manner to differing physics implementations.
> 
> But, regardless, I believe that moving forward in a compatible manner and 
> making sure we dont shoot ourselves in the foot is very important. I would 
> counsel caution *and* I would counsel some independent testing to make sure 
> we are moving forward in a predictable manner.
> 
> Charles
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From: Melanie 
> To: opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de
> Sent: Wednesday, July 8, 2009 2:43:17 PM
> Subject: Re: [Opensim-dev] Deprecate OpenSim.Grid.InventoryServer and 
> OpenSim.Grid.AssetServer?
> 
> This is not going to happen on the drawing board. It can't. And also 
> it would be taking the second step before the first.
> 
> First, the existing protocols are converted to services, as it has 
> already happened to asset and inventory services. Those can then run 
> in B.U.S.T. with full compatibility.
> 
> Then the old server needs to go away. At this point one code base 
> has been replaced with another one without protocol changes.
> 
> This creates a scenario where new protocols can be developed and 
> tested without breaking things. Here the protocols will evolve as 
> they are coded.
> 
> Finally, the new protocols will replace the old, after they have 
> been tested and used in production by early adopters.
> 
> Melanie
> 
> MW wrote:
>> Well as Justin said, there needs to be plans/documents detailing all the 
>> details of the replacement protocols before the process of replacing them is 
>> began.
>> 
>> --- On Wed, 8/7/09, Melanie  wrote:
>> 
>> From: Melanie 
>> Subject: Re: [Opensim-dev] Deprecate OpenSim.Grid.InventoryServer and 
>> OpenSim.Grid.AssetServer?
>> To: opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de
>> Date: Wednesday, 8 July, 2009, 9:08 PM
>> 
>> Hi,
>> 
>> Justin Clark-Casey wrote:
>>> But the real question was about your statement
>>> 
>>> "But changes are planned as we are moving to more sane protocols."
>>> 
>>> source: https://lists.berlios.de/pipermail/opensim-dev/2009-July/006992.html
>>> 
>>> Who is the 'we' in this?  What are these protocols?  Why are they more 
>>> sane, etc., etc.?  This is an entirely different 
>>> question to generalizing the OpenSim grid servers.  Perhaps they were not 
>>> meant to be mixed up in this.
>> 
>> "We" is all of us, the project, for one, and Diva and I as the devs 
>> driving this change, too.
>> 
>> Today's wire protocols are not sane. There is no point in 
>> transferring ALL the user's inventory to EVERY region visited, just 
>> to get the root folder ID, which is the only thing needed from that 
>> potentially HUGE blob.
>> 
>> Just to mention one known bit of insanity.
>> 
>> Another part that is not sane is the user services. They aren't 
>> natively equipped to handle the concept of no authentication or HG, 
>> or user levels, or scopes. They mix in data items that don't belong 
>> together just because Linden did.
>> 
>> Assets were already made RESTful and so the asset protocol was 
>> preserved unchanged.
>> The grid server protocol is a lean one and changes will be minimal 
>> (probably just a XMLRPC->REST conversion if they're not REST already)
>> 
>> Presence is totally insane again. It needs to be ripped out and 
>> redone, now that we know more about real world demands large grids 
>> place on the servers.
>> 
>> With the modular architecture, that is a simple as snapping in 
>> another connector. so if your grid uses a new RESTful gridserver 
>> protocol, you just use the RESTGridConnector rather than the 
>> XMLLRPCGridConnector. The service providers and consumers stay the same.
>> 
>> The monolithic servers can't cope with that, so they need to go.
>> 
>> Melanie
>> ___
>> Opensim-dev mailing list
>> Opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de
>> https://lists.berli

Re: [Opensim-dev] Deprecate OpenSim.Grid.InventoryServer and OpenSim.Grid.AssetServer?

[Melanie]

Which is precisely what is intended. But the old dinosaur servers 
are in the way.

You can rest assured no grids will be harmed in the making of these 
servers - to paraphrase the movie industry

Melanie

Charles Krinke wrote:
> I believe it is pretty important to ensure that we go forwards in a 
> compatible manner and not backwards.
> 
> Certainly new implementations of servers, executables, protocols and the like 
> are encouraged, but we also need to make sure that everything continues to 
> work.
> 
> Perhaps this new work should be on the forge. Perhaps it should be done in 
> such a way that the users can ultimately determine which server is 
> appropriate in a similar manner to differing physics implementations.
> 
> But, regardless, I believe that moving forward in a compatible manner and 
> making sure we dont shoot ourselves in the foot is very important. I would 
> counsel caution *and* I would counsel some independent testing to make sure 
> we are moving forward in a predictable manner.
> 
> Charles
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From: Melanie 
> To: opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de
> Sent: Wednesday, July 8, 2009 2:43:17 PM
> Subject: Re: [Opensim-dev] Deprecate OpenSim.Grid.InventoryServer and 
> OpenSim.Grid.AssetServer?
> 
> This is not going to happen on the drawing board. It can't. And also 
> it would be taking the second step before the first.
> 
> First, the existing protocols are converted to services, as it has 
> already happened to asset and inventory services. Those can then run 
> in B.U.S.T. with full compatibility.
> 
> Then the old server needs to go away. At this point one code base 
> has been replaced with another one without protocol changes.
> 
> This creates a scenario where new protocols can be developed and 
> tested without breaking things. Here the protocols will evolve as 
> they are coded.
> 
> Finally, the new protocols will replace the old, after they have 
> been tested and used in production by early adopters.
> 
> Melanie
> 
> MW wrote:
>> Well as Justin said, there needs to be plans/documents detailing all the 
>> details of the replacement protocols before the process of replacing them is 
>> began.
>> 
>> --- On Wed, 8/7/09, Melanie  wrote:
>> 
>> From: Melanie 
>> Subject: Re: [Opensim-dev] Deprecate OpenSim.Grid.InventoryServer and 
>> OpenSim.Grid.AssetServer?
>> To: opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de
>> Date: Wednesday, 8 July, 2009, 9:08 PM
>> 
>> Hi,
>> 
>> Justin Clark-Casey wrote:
>>> But the real question was about your statement
>>> 
>>> "But changes are planned as we are moving to more sane protocols."
>>> 
>>> source: https://lists.berlios.de/pipermail/opensim-dev/2009-July/006992.html
>>> 
>>> Who is the 'we' in this?  What are these protocols?  Why are they more 
>>> sane, etc., etc.?  This is an entirely different 
>>> question to generalizing the OpenSim grid servers.  Perhaps they were not 
>>> meant to be mixed up in this.
>> 
>> "We" is all of us, the project, for one, and Diva and I as the devs 
>> driving this change, too.
>> 
>> Today's wire protocols are not sane. There is no point in 
>> transferring ALL the user's inventory to EVERY region visited, just 
>> to get the root folder ID, which is the only thing needed from that 
>> potentially HUGE blob.
>> 
>> Just to mention one known bit of insanity.
>> 
>> Another part that is not sane is the user services. They aren't 
>> natively equipped to handle the concept of no authentication or HG, 
>> or user levels, or scopes. They mix in data items that don't belong 
>> together just because Linden did.
>> 
>> Assets were already made RESTful and so the asset protocol was 
>> preserved unchanged.
>> The grid server protocol is a lean one and changes will be minimal 
>> (probably just a XMLRPC->REST conversion if they're not REST already)
>> 
>> Presence is totally insane again. It needs to be ripped out and 
>> redone, now that we know more about real world demands large grids 
>> place on the servers.
>> 
>> With the modular architecture, that is a simple as snapping in 
>> another connector. so if your grid uses a new RESTful gridserver 
>> protocol, you just use the RESTGridConnector rather than the 
>> XMLLRPCGridConnector. The service providers and consumers stay the same.
>> 
>> The monolithic servers can't cope with that, so they need to go.
>> 
>> Melanie
>> ___
>> 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
> ___
> Opensim-dev mailing list
> Opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de
> https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev
> 
> 
> 
> --

Re: [Opensim-dev] Deprecate OpenSim.Grid.InventoryServer and OpenSim.Grid.AssetServer?

[Charles Krinke]

I believe it is pretty important to ensure that we go forwards in a compatible 
manner and not backwards.

Certainly new implementations of servers, executables, protocols and the like 
are encouraged, but we also need to make sure that everything continues to work.

Perhaps this new work should be on the forge. Perhaps it should be done in such 
a way that the users can ultimately determine which server is appropriate in a 
similar manner to differing physics implementations.

But, regardless, I believe that moving forward in a compatible manner and 
making sure we dont shoot ourselves in the foot is very important. I would 
counsel caution *and* I would counsel some independent testing to make sure we 
are moving forward in a predictable manner.

Charles





From: Melanie 
To: opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de
Sent: Wednesday, July 8, 2009 2:43:17 PM
Subject: Re: [Opensim-dev] Deprecate OpenSim.Grid.InventoryServer and 
OpenSim.Grid.AssetServer?

This is not going to happen on the drawing board. It can't. And also 
it would be taking the second step before the first.

First, the existing protocols are converted to services, as it has 
already happened to asset and inventory services. Those can then run 
in B.U.S.T. with full compatibility.

Then the old server needs to go away. At this point one code base 
has been replaced with another one without protocol changes.

This creates a scenario where new protocols can be developed and 
tested without breaking things. Here the protocols will evolve as 
they are coded.

Finally, the new protocols will replace the old, after they have 
been tested and used in production by early adopters.

Melanie

MW wrote:
> Well as Justin said, there needs to be plans/documents detailing all the 
> details of the replacement protocols before the process of replacing them is 
> began.
> 
> --- On Wed, 8/7/09, Melanie  wrote:
> 
> From: Melanie 
> Subject: Re: [Opensim-dev] Deprecate OpenSim.Grid.InventoryServer and 
> OpenSim.Grid.AssetServer?
> To: opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de
> Date: Wednesday, 8 July, 2009, 9:08 PM
> 
> Hi,
> 
> Justin Clark-Casey wrote:
>> But the real question was about your statement
>> 
>> "But changes are planned as we are moving to more sane protocols."
>> 
>> source: https://lists.berlios.de/pipermail/opensim-dev/2009-July/006992.html
>> 
>> Who is the 'we' in this?  What are these protocols?  Why are they more sane, 
>> etc., etc.?  This is an entirely different 
>> question to generalizing the OpenSim grid servers.  Perhaps they were not 
>> meant to be mixed up in this.
> 
> "We" is all of us, the project, for one, and Diva and I as the devs 
> driving this change, too.
> 
> Today's wire protocols are not sane. There is no point in 
> transferring ALL the user's inventory to EVERY region visited, just 
> to get the root folder ID, which is the only thing needed from that 
> potentially HUGE blob.
> 
> Just to mention one known bit of insanity.
> 
> Another part that is not sane is the user services. They aren't 
> natively equipped to handle the concept of no authentication or HG, 
> or user levels, or scopes. They mix in data items that don't belong 
> together just because Linden did.
> 
> Assets were already made RESTful and so the asset protocol was 
> preserved unchanged.
> The grid server protocol is a lean one and changes will be minimal 
> (probably just a XMLRPC->REST conversion if they're not REST already)
> 
> Presence is totally insane again. It needs to be ripped out and 
> redone, now that we know more about real world demands large grids 
> place on the servers.
> 
> With the modular architecture, that is a simple as snapping in 
> another connector. so if your grid uses a new RESTful gridserver 
> protocol, you just use the RESTGridConnector rather than the 
> XMLLRPCGridConnector. The service providers and consumers stay the same.
> 
> The monolithic servers can't cope with that, so they need to go.
> 
> Melanie
> ___
> 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
___
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

Re: [Opensim-dev] Deprecate OpenSim.Grid.InventoryServer and OpenSim.Grid.AssetServer?

[Melanie]

This is not going to happen on the drawing board. It can't. And also 
it would be taking the second step before the first.

First, the existing protocols are converted to services, as it has 
already happened to asset and inventory services. Those can then run 
in B.U.S.T. with full compatibility.

Then the old server needs to go away. At this point one code base 
has been replaced with another one without protocol changes.

This creates a scenario where new protocols can be developed and 
tested without breaking things. Here the protocols will evolve as 
they are coded.

Finally, the new protocols will replace the old, after they have 
been tested and used in production by early adopters.

Melanie

MW wrote:
> Well as Justin said, there needs to be plans/documents detailing all the 
> details of the replacement protocols before the process of replacing them is 
> began.
> 
> --- On Wed, 8/7/09, Melanie  wrote:
> 
> From: Melanie 
> Subject: Re: [Opensim-dev] Deprecate OpenSim.Grid.InventoryServer and 
> OpenSim.Grid.AssetServer?
> To: opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de
> Date: Wednesday, 8 July, 2009, 9:08 PM
> 
> Hi,
> 
> Justin Clark-Casey wrote:
>> But the real question was about your statement
>> 
>> "But changes are planned as we are moving to more sane protocols."
>> 
>> source: https://lists.berlios.de/pipermail/opensim-dev/2009-July/006992.html
>> 
>> Who is the 'we' in this?  What are these protocols?  Why are they more sane, 
>> etc., etc.?  This is an entirely different 
>> question to generalizing the OpenSim grid servers.  Perhaps they were not 
>> meant to be mixed up in this.
> 
> "We" is all of us, the project, for one, and Diva and I as the devs 
> driving this change, too.
> 
> Today's wire protocols are not sane. There is no point in 
> transferring ALL the user's inventory to EVERY region visited, just 
> to get the root folder ID, which is the only thing needed from that 
> potentially HUGE blob.
> 
> Just to mention one known bit of insanity.
> 
> Another part that is not sane is the user services. They aren't 
> natively equipped to handle the concept of no authentication or HG, 
> or user levels, or scopes. They mix in data items that don't belong 
> together just because Linden did.
> 
> Assets were already made RESTful and so the asset protocol was 
> preserved unchanged.
> The grid server protocol is a lean one and changes will be minimal 
> (probably just a XMLRPC->REST conversion if they're not REST already)
> 
> Presence is totally insane again. It needs to be ripped out and 
> redone, now that we know more about real world demands large grids 
> place on the servers.
> 
> With the modular architecture, that is a simple as snapping in 
> another connector. so if your grid uses a new RESTful gridserver 
> protocol, you just use the RESTGridConnector rather than the 
> XMLLRPCGridConnector. The service providers and consumers stay the same.
> 
> The monolithic servers can't cope with that, so they need to go.
> 
> Melanie
> ___
> 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
___
Opensim-dev mailing list
Opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de
https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev

Re: [Opensim-dev] Deprecate OpenSim.Grid.InventoryServer and OpenSim.Grid.AssetServer?

[MW]

Well as Justin said, there needs to be plans/documents detailing all the 
details of the replacement protocols before the process of replacing them is 
began.

--- On Wed, 8/7/09, Melanie  wrote:

From: Melanie 
Subject: Re: [Opensim-dev] Deprecate OpenSim.Grid.InventoryServer and 
OpenSim.Grid.AssetServer?
To: opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de
Date: Wednesday, 8 July, 2009, 9:08 PM

Hi,

Justin Clark-Casey wrote:
> But the real question was about your statement
> 
> "But changes are planned as we are moving to more sane protocols."
> 
> source: https://lists.berlios.de/pipermail/opensim-dev/2009-July/006992.html
> 
> Who is the 'we' in this?  What are these protocols?  Why are they more sane, 
> etc., etc.?  This is an entirely different 
> question to generalizing the OpenSim grid servers.  Perhaps they were not 
> meant to be mixed up in this.

"We" is all of us, the project, for one, and Diva and I as the devs 
driving this change, too.

Today's wire protocols are not sane. There is no point in 
transferring ALL the user's inventory to EVERY region visited, just 
to get the root folder ID, which is the only thing needed from that 
potentially HUGE blob.

Just to mention one known bit of insanity.

Another part that is not sane is the user services. They aren't 
natively equipped to handle the concept of no authentication or HG, 
or user levels, or scopes. They mix in data items that don't belong 
together just because Linden did.

Assets were already made RESTful and so the asset protocol was 
preserved unchanged.
The grid server protocol is a lean one and changes will be minimal 
(probably just a XMLRPC->REST conversion if they're not REST already)

Presence is totally insane again. It needs to be ripped out and 
redone, now that we know more about real world demands large grids 
place on the servers.

With the modular architecture, that is a simple as snapping in 
another connector. so if your grid uses a new RESTful gridserver 
protocol, you just use the RESTGridConnector rather than the 
XMLLRPCGridConnector. The service providers and consumers stay the same.

The monolithic servers can't cope with that, so they need to go.

Melanie
___
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

Re: [Opensim-dev] Deprecate OpenSim.Grid.InventoryServer and OpenSim.Grid.AssetServer?

[Melanie]

Hi,

Justin Clark-Casey wrote:
> But the real question was about your statement
> 
> "But changes are planned as we are moving to more sane protocols."
> 
> source: https://lists.berlios.de/pipermail/opensim-dev/2009-July/006992.html
> 
> Who is the 'we' in this?  What are these protocols?  Why are they more sane, 
> etc., etc.?  This is an entirely different 
> question to generalizing the OpenSim grid servers.  Perhaps they were not 
> meant to be mixed up in this.

"We" is all of us, the project, for one, and Diva and I as the devs 
driving this change, too.

Today's wire protocols are not sane. There is no point in 
transferring ALL the user's inventory to EVERY region visited, just 
to get the root folder ID, which is the only thing needed from that 
potentially HUGE blob.

Just to mention one known bit of insanity.

Another part that is not sane is the user services. They aren't 
natively equipped to handle the concept of no authentication or HG, 
or user levels, or scopes. They mix in data items that don't belong 
together just because Linden did.

Assets were already made RESTful and so the asset protocol was 
preserved unchanged.
The grid server protocol is a lean one and changes will be minimal 
(probably just a XMLRPC->REST conversion if they're not REST already)

Presence is totally insane again. It needs to be ripped out and 
redone, now that we know more about real world demands large grids 
place on the servers.

With the modular architecture, that is a simple as snapping in 
another connector. so if your grid uses a new RESTful gridserver 
protocol, you just use the RESTGridConnector rather than the 
XMLLRPCGridConnector. The service providers and consumers stay the same.

The monolithic servers can't cope with that, so they need to go.

Melanie
___
Opensim-dev mailing list
Opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de
https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev

Re: [Opensim-dev] Deprecate OpenSim.Grid.InventoryServer and OpenSim.Grid.AssetServer?

[Justin Clark-Casey]

Melanie wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> this has been spoken about extensively, mostly on IRC. It is NOT 
> about _changing_ OGS1. It's about replacing it.

fyi, as has been said many times in the past, speaking about something on IRC 
does _not_ mean that everybody knows about 
it.  Peer review must occur either via mailing list or around a wiki page, at 
the very least.  Wiki page is preferable 
because they provide a summarized, easily understood and referenced proposal.  
Mailing lists often provide only an 
incremental picture.  Discussing a large proposal only (or largely) on IRC is 
not valid and can get overturned or 
questioned.

> 
> OGS1 is a monolithic juggernaut that stubbornly resists evolutionary 
> pressures. It can't be updates any more than the dinosaurs could be. 
> The smaller, faster mammals (services) will push it out of the 
> picture. This has already happened for assets and inventory.
> 
> The basic structure is as Diva describes:
> 
> IN_Connector -> Service -> Out_Connector
> 
> where each is optional.
> 
> So, a region will normally load either a service (standalone mode) 
> or a out connector, which will then connect it to an in connector on 
> a server that then loads the service.
> 
> The interesting part is that the system of connectors allows up to 
> design more sane wire protocols - but not if we have legacy servers 
> around that don't subscribe to the connectors system and lock the 
> present wire protocol in place.
> 
> So, as B.U.S.T. gains implants for a protocol (using a compatible 
> wire protocol plugin at first), the corresponding legacy server 
> needs to go.
> Then new protocol plugins can be developed that are more sane, allow 
> more functionality, have more security, or whatever other 
> improvements. The servers will be able to follow such protocol 
> changes in mix & match fashion by using appropriate connectors.

I don't see any problems with this, providing its documented (as you have now 
done) and reasonably extensively tested by 
others (which as far as I can tell is not the case yet, hence the concerns of 
Charles and others).

But the real question was about your statement

"But changes are planned as we are moving to more sane protocols."

source: https://lists.berlios.de/pipermail/opensim-dev/2009-July/006992.html

Who is the 'we' in this?  What are these protocols?  Why are they more sane, 
etc., etc.?  This is an entirely different 
question to generalizing the OpenSim grid servers.  Perhaps they were not meant 
to be mixed up in this.

> 
> Melanie
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Clark-Casey wrote:
>> Mike Dickson wrote:
>>> On Wed, 2009-07-08 at 14:48 +, Melanie wrote:
 Charles, I said documentation is on it's way. I would like to get 
 people's opinions on moving forward with deprecating the old 
 servers, not people's opinions on the obvious need for documentation.

 Further, if the old servers are kept, they will have to be 
 maintained indefinitely and so will the protocols, blocking any real 
 progress. So, could you please explain your -1?
>>> You mentioned (and Justin I think asked for details) on protocols changing. 
>>> Which protocols are you refering to (inter-server protocol, client-server 
>>> protocol)?
>> Yes, you (Melanie) have mentioned 'new' protocols but afaik this is the 
>> first I've heard of this.  Changing OGS1 
>> protocols is a big upheaval and should be properly laid out and peer 
>> reviewed before work starts. not after or during. 
>> Going down the wrong path now will be expensive later on.
>>
>> If you can point me towards existing documentation on this (if it's part of 
>> BUST) that would be appreciated.
>>
>> Thankyou for writing the existing documentation on BUST.  I'm sure if the 
>> new technology is well received then we can 
>> deprecate and remove the old servers.
>>
>> I also don't like the name 'BUST'.  As we've already *very extensively 
>> seen*, we should not assume a sense of humour on 
>> the part of others.  A compromise would be to change the server prompt.
>>
>>> In general I'm +1 for this since I'd really like to see the core settle
>>> down into a stable state and getting the refactoring behind us is a
>>> prereq. for that.  I certainly understand the desire for doco so people
>>> know what they're being asked for feedback on however.
>> Absolutely.  Asking for a general vote on progress is like proposing a vote 
>> on motherhood and apple pie.  We can only 
>> make meaningful votes on specific proposals.
>>
>> I'm actually now confused on whether you're asking for a vote on eventually 
>> deprecating the old servers (but not before 
>> another vote) or on changing basic grid protocols.  I assume it is the 
>> former rather than the latter.
>>
> ___
> 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
__

Re: [Opensim-dev] Currency

[Snowdrop Short]

The core developers have for valid reasons (whatever others may think
and argue, they are - at least - subjectively valid) for not including a
money module.

I think it would be best to let this debate rest. I believe continuing
to argue for a money module to be part of the core, is showing
ingratitude to the core developers who has put in such a great effort on
the project and completely needless.

OpenSim is licensed via BSD, one of the most liberate licenses currently
in common use, nothing prevents a money module from being implemented,
either in close or open source. Furthermore I am convinced that the core
will accept patches for hooks, if the current hooks prove in-adequate.
(This has been done for other out-of-core modules).

Even if the core team should decide a money module was within the scope
of the project, it would still require volunteers to implement the
module, so I fail to see the real difference between an out-of-core
module for handling money and an in-core one.

If all the passion thrown into this debate was directed towards creating
an out-of-core module, it would spring into existence quite rapidly.

/Snowcrash


On Wed, 2009-07-08 at 17:17 +0200, Colin B. Withers wrote:
> Hi Neb,
> 
>  
> 
> No, I do get the point, but I am simply not convinced of the
> arguments.
> 
>  
> 
> Opensim is unsafe, understandably so. Right now, it is in the alpha
> stage, but that is no reason not to pursue code from alpha, through
> beta, and onto release.
> 
>  
> 
> Let me put it this way, quite clearly..
> 
>  
> 
> If I, or anyone else, wanted to to use Opensim as a platform for a
> virtual world, (not during alpha, or beta, but after it is released)
> and that virtual would was to have commerce, ala SL, and due to the
> Opensim policy of no currency module in core I went to a third party
> and procured a currency module, I would have a situation where the two
> most critical elements of a commerce system, ie:
> 
>  
> 
> a) The asset server (produced by the core developers of opensim), and
> 
>  
> 
> b) A currency module (produced by VW$$$.inc)
> 
>  
> 
> are sourced from different suppliers.
> 
>  
> 
> Now, please explain to me the difference between:
> 
>  
> 
> i) People losing money due to a malfunction in the currency module, 
> 
>  
> 
> ii) People losing assets (that have a monetary value, having been
> bought with real $$$ through the currency module) due to an asset
> server malfunction?
> 
>  
> 
> It seems to me that there is just as much, or even more risk, of
> people losing valuable assets from the asset server, than from the
> currency module.
> 
>  
> 
> Is it then the devs' position that the asset server is (or eventually
> will be) immune from the risk of loss of assets?
> 
>  
> 
> I do not believe that position could ever be held. Even after so much
> development work, both on the code and the backbone, SL still loses
> its residents' assets (the huge losses sustained by residents just 2
> or 3 weeks ago is testament to that).
> 
>  
> 
> Is there any real difference between:
> 
>  
> 
> 1. Using US$10 to buy inworld currency, that does not show up then on
> my balance,
> 
> 2. Getting the inworld currency, but later due to a glitch, losing US
> $10's worth of inworld currency
> 
> 3. Buying an object inworld that costs the inworld currency equivalent
> to US$10, and the object disappearing from my inventory?
> 
>  
> 
> To my mind, in all three cases, I am US$10 down.
> 
>  
> 
> I just don't see how BOTH these statements can be true at the same
> time:
> 
>  
> 
> Currency module = big risk
> 
> Asset server = no risk
> 
>  
> 
> And I have never argued that the devs should be responsible for risk
> (it is the devs themselves that are arguing that they have that risk,
> and hence the need to divest themselves of it). My position is that
> all risk is on the grid owner, and that risk can be mitigated (as SL
> does) by a carefully worded TOS.
> 
>  
> 
> Rock
> 
>  
> 
> From: opensim-dev-boun...@lists.berlios.de
> [mailto:opensim-dev-boun...@lists.berlios.de] On Behalf Of Nebadon
> Izumi
> Sent: Wednesday, July 08, 2009 4:39 PM
> To: opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de
> Subject: Re: [Opensim-dev] Currency
> 
> 
>  
> 
> Rock,
> 
> I do beleive your missing the point entirely, the reason we do not
> wish to implement any money systems at this time, is exactly for that
> reason, OpenSImulator is not a safe place to be slinging money around,
> the asset server is not secure, nothing about opensimulator is secure,
> yet you people are all arguing that other people take on the risk so
> that you can have an economic system,  It is this exact argument you
> are making that has prompted the development team to flat out say no
> to everyone, you can not expect others to take on risk so you can make
> a living, if you want this functionality so badly, you should A,
> develop the system yourself like we said, or B hire a professional who
> understands security to evalute the risk assessmen

Re: [Opensim-dev] Deprecate OpenSim.Grid.InventoryServer and OpenSim.Grid.AssetServer?

[Melanie]

Not bad, not bad at all.

Sean Hennessee wrote:
> MW wrote:
>> I also would rather a different name than BUST, and also before any 
>> protocol changes are done, see full documentation about the plans.
> 
> How about BOSS? Basic Open Simulator Servers?
> 
> ~Sean
___
Opensim-dev mailing list
Opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de
https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev

Re: [Opensim-dev] Deprecate OpenSim.Grid.InventoryServer and OpenSim.Grid.AssetServer?

[Toni Alatalo]

On Jul 8, 2009, at 7:51 PM, Sean Hennessee wrote:

> MW wrote:
>> I also would rather a different name than BUST, and also before any
>
> How about BOSS? Basic Open Simulator Servers?

nice acronym - perhaps too JBoss-y a name though, and it being also a 
server framework (the open source j2ee thing) is a little bit close.

i don't mind BUST, but it's not a huge matter i think anyways.

> ~Sean

~Toni

___
Opensim-dev mailing list
Opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de
https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev

Re: [Opensim-dev] Deprecate OpenSim.Grid.InventoryServer and OpenSim.Grid.AssetServer?

[Sean Hennessee]

MW wrote:
> I also would rather a different name than BUST, and also before any 
> protocol changes are done, see full documentation about the plans.

How about BOSS? Basic Open Simulator Servers?

~Sean
-- 

Sean Hennessee
UC Irvine

... . .- -. /   . -. -. . ... ... . .
___
Opensim-dev mailing list
Opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de
https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev

Re: [Opensim-dev] Deprecate OpenSim.Grid.InventoryServer and OpenSim.Grid.AssetServer?

[Charles Krinke]

Sacha:

That would be uber-cool if you could test the BUST notions and report back your 
opinion. It would allow a number of folks to feel more comfortable about these 
proposed changes.

Thank you kindly.

Charles





From: Sacha Magne 
To: opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de
Sent: Wednesday, July 8, 2009 9:43:03 AM
Subject: Re: [Opensim-dev] Deprecate OpenSim.Grid.InventoryServer and 
OpenSim.Grid.AssetServer?

We will be pleased to test BUST without the fears to  get Busted...

Sacha


Le 8 juil. 09 à 18:33, Charles Krinke a écrit :

Melanie:

I think the key here is 'evolution' and not 'revolution'. We have sufficient 
momentum and sufficient users with OpenSim that we need to go out of our way to 
provide and evolutionary path and that of necessity must include sufficient 
documentation to allow our users to use OpenSim with a reasonable effort.

As we evolve, whether we go away from the UGAIM to BUST or something else has 
yet to be determined, and it will be determined by the users as they adopt one 
or the other.

So, please figure out how to get two grids using BUST and report back on their 
progress. 

Given that, please figure out how to get a half-a-dozen early adopters to test 
this new logic.

By doing that, the 'evolution' will take care of itself and we will have a much 
better product.

Charles





From: Justin Clark-Casey 
To: opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de
Sent: Wednesday, July 8, 2009 9:26:28 AM
Subject: Re: [Opensim-dev] Deprecate OpenSim.Grid.InventoryServer and 
OpenSim.Grid.AssetServer?

Mike Dickson wrote:
> On Wed, 2009-07-08 at 14:48 +, Melanie wrote:
>> Charles, I said documentation is on it's way. I would like to get 
>> people's opinions on moving forward with deprecating the old 
>> servers, not people's opinions on the obvious need for documentation.
>>
>> Further, if the old servers are kept, they will have to be 
>> maintained indefinitely and so will the protocols, blocking any real 
>> progress. So, could you please explain your -1?
> 
> You mentioned (and Justin I think asked for details) on protocols changing. 
> Which protocols are you refering to (inter-server protocol, client-server 
> protocol)?

Yes, you (Melanie) have mentioned 'new' protocols but afaik this is the first 
I've heard of this.  Changing OGS1 
protocols is a big upheaval and should be properly laid out and peer reviewed 
before work starts. not after or during. 
Going down the wrong path now will be expensive later on.

If you can point me towards existing documentation on this (if it's part of 
BUST) that would be appreciated.

Thankyou for writing the existing documentation on BUST.  I'm sure if the new 
technology is well received then we can 
deprecate and remove the old servers.

I also don't like the name 'BUST'.  As we've already *very extensively seen*, 
we should not assume a sense of humour on 
the part of others.  A compromise would be to change the server prompt.

> 
> In general I'm +1 for this since I'd really like to see the core settle
> down into a stable state and getting the refactoring behind us is a
> prereq. for that.  I certainly understand the desire for doco so people
> know what they're being asked for feedback on however.

Absolutely.  Asking for a general vote on progress is like proposing a vote on 
motherhood and apple pie.  We can only 
make meaningful votes on specific proposals.

I'm actually now confused on whether you're asking for a vote on eventually 
deprecating the old servers (but not before 
another vote) or on changing basic grid protocols.  I assume it is the former 
rather than the latter.

-- 
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
___
Opensim-dev mailing list
Opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de
https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev


Sacha Magne
sacha.ma...@k-grid.com

K-Grid, the Kool grid for the Kool Kats 
http://K-grid.com___
Opensim-dev mailing list
Opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de
https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev

Re: [Opensim-dev] Deprecate OpenSim.Grid.InventoryServer and OpenSim.Grid.AssetServer?

[Melanie]

Hi,

this has been spoken about extensively, mostly on IRC. It is NOT 
about _changing_ OGS1. It's about replacing it.

OGS1 is a monolithic juggernaut that stubbornly resists evolutionary 
pressures. It can't be updates any more than the dinosaurs could be. 
The smaller, faster mammals (services) will push it out of the 
picture. This has already happened for assets and inventory.

The basic structure is as Diva describes:

IN_Connector -> Service -> Out_Connector

where each is optional.

So, a region will normally load either a service (standalone mode) 
or a out connector, which will then connect it to an in connector on 
a server that then loads the service.

The interesting part is that the system of connectors allows up to 
design more sane wire protocols - but not if we have legacy servers 
around that don't subscribe to the connectors system and lock the 
present wire protocol in place.

So, as B.U.S.T. gains implants for a protocol (using a compatible 
wire protocol plugin at first), the corresponding legacy server 
needs to go.
Then new protocol plugins can be developed that are more sane, allow 
more functionality, have more security, or whatever other 
improvements. The servers will be able to follow such protocol 
changes in mix & match fashion by using appropriate connectors.

Melanie



Justin Clark-Casey wrote:
> Mike Dickson wrote:
>> On Wed, 2009-07-08 at 14:48 +, Melanie wrote:
>>> Charles, I said documentation is on it's way. I would like to get 
>>> people's opinions on moving forward with deprecating the old 
>>> servers, not people's opinions on the obvious need for documentation.
>>>
>>> Further, if the old servers are kept, they will have to be 
>>> maintained indefinitely and so will the protocols, blocking any real 
>>> progress. So, could you please explain your -1?
>> 
>> You mentioned (and Justin I think asked for details) on protocols changing. 
>> Which protocols are you refering to (inter-server protocol, client-server 
>> protocol)?
> 
> Yes, you (Melanie) have mentioned 'new' protocols but afaik this is the first 
> I've heard of this.  Changing OGS1 
> protocols is a big upheaval and should be properly laid out and peer reviewed 
> before work starts. not after or during. 
> Going down the wrong path now will be expensive later on.
> 
> If you can point me towards existing documentation on this (if it's part of 
> BUST) that would be appreciated.
> 
> Thankyou for writing the existing documentation on BUST.  I'm sure if the new 
> technology is well received then we can 
> deprecate and remove the old servers.
> 
> I also don't like the name 'BUST'.  As we've already *very extensively seen*, 
> we should not assume a sense of humour on 
> the part of others.  A compromise would be to change the server prompt.
> 
>> 
>> In general I'm +1 for this since I'd really like to see the core settle
>> down into a stable state and getting the refactoring behind us is a
>> prereq. for that.  I certainly understand the desire for doco so people
>> know what they're being asked for feedback on however.
> 
> Absolutely.  Asking for a general vote on progress is like proposing a vote 
> on motherhood and apple pie.  We can only 
> make meaningful votes on specific proposals.
> 
> I'm actually now confused on whether you're asking for a vote on eventually 
> deprecating the old servers (but not before 
> another vote) or on changing basic grid protocols.  I assume it is the former 
> rather than the latter.
> 
___
Opensim-dev mailing list
Opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de
https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev

Re: [Opensim-dev] Deprecate OpenSim.Grid.InventoryServer and OpenSim.Grid.AssetServer?

[Sacha Magne]

We will be pleased to test BUST without the fears to  get Busted...

Sacha

Le 8 juil. 09 à 18:33, Charles Krinke a écrit :


Melanie:

I think the key here is 'evolution' and not 'revolution'. We have  
sufficient momentum and sufficient users with OpenSim that we need  
to go out of our way to provide and evolutionary path and that of  
necessity must include sufficient documentation to allow our users  
to use OpenSim with a reasonable effort.


As we evolve, whether we go away from the UGAIM to BUST or something  
else has yet to be determined, and it will be determined by the  
users as they adopt one or the other.


So, please figure out how to get two grids using BUST and report  
back on their progress.


Given that, please figure out how to get a half-a-dozen early  
adopters to test this new logic.


By doing that, the 'evolution' will take care of itself and we will  
have a much better product.


Charles

From: Justin Clark-Casey 
To: opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de
Sent: Wednesday, July 8, 2009 9:26:28 AM
Subject: Re: [Opensim-dev] Deprecate OpenSim.Grid.InventoryServer  
and OpenSim.Grid.AssetServer?


Mike Dickson wrote:
> On Wed, 2009-07-08 at 14:48 +, Melanie wrote:
>> Charles, I said documentation is on it's way. I would like to get
>> people's opinions on moving forward with deprecating the old
>> servers, not people's opinions on the obvious need for  
documentation.

>>
>> Further, if the old servers are kept, they will have to be
>> maintained indefinitely and so will the protocols, blocking any  
real

>> progress. So, could you please explain your -1?
>
> You mentioned (and Justin I think asked for details) on protocols  
changing.
> Which protocols are you refering to (inter-server protocol, client- 
server protocol)?


Yes, you (Melanie) have mentioned 'new' protocols but afaik this is  
the first I've heard of this.  Changing OGS1
protocols is a big upheaval and should be properly laid out and peer  
reviewed before work starts. not after or during.

Going down the wrong path now will be expensive later on.

If you can point me towards existing documentation on this (if it's  
part of BUST) that would be appreciated.


Thankyou for writing the existing documentation on BUST.  I'm sure  
if the new technology is well received then we can

deprecate and remove the old servers.

I also don't like the name 'BUST'.  As we've already *very  
extensively seen*, we should not assume a sense of humour on
the part of others.  A compromise would be to change the server  
prompt.


>
> In general I'm +1 for this since I'd really like to see the core  
settle

> down into a stable state and getting the refactoring behind us is a
> prereq. for that.  I certainly understand the desire for doco so  
people

> know what they're being asked for feedback on however.

Absolutely.  Asking for a general vote on progress is like proposing  
a vote on motherhood and apple pie.  We can only

make meaningful votes on specific proposals.

I'm actually now confused on whether you're asking for a vote on  
eventually deprecating the old servers (but not before
another vote) or on changing basic grid protocols.  I assume it is  
the former rather than the latter.


--
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
___
Opensim-dev mailing list
Opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de
https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev


Sacha Magne
sacha.ma...@k-grid.com

K-Grid, the Kool grid for the Kool Kats
http://K-grid.com



___
Opensim-dev mailing list
Opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de
https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev

Re: [Opensim-dev] Deprecate OpenSim.Grid.InventoryServer and OpenSim.Grid.AssetServer?

[Charles Krinke]

Melanie:

I think the key here is 'evolution' and not 'revolution'. We have sufficient 
momentum and sufficient users with OpenSim that we need to go out of our way to 
provide and evolutionary path and that of necessity must include sufficient 
documentation to allow our users to use OpenSim with a reasonable effort.

As we evolve, whether we go away from the UGAIM to BUST or something else has 
yet to be determined, and it will be determined by the users as they adopt one 
or the other.

So, please figure out how to get two grids using BUST and report back on their 
progress. 

Given that, please figure out how to get a half-a-dozen early adopters to test 
this new logic.

By doing that, the 'evolution' will take care of itself and we will have a much 
better product.

Charles





From: Justin Clark-Casey 
To: opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de
Sent: Wednesday, July 8, 2009 9:26:28 AM
Subject: Re: [Opensim-dev] Deprecate OpenSim.Grid.InventoryServer and 
OpenSim.Grid.AssetServer?

Mike Dickson wrote:
> On Wed, 2009-07-08 at 14:48 +, Melanie wrote:
>> Charles, I said documentation is on it's way. I would like to get 
>> people's opinions on moving forward with deprecating the old 
>> servers, not people's opinions on the obvious need for documentation.
>>
>> Further, if the old servers are kept, they will have to be 
>> maintained indefinitely and so will the protocols, blocking any real 
>> progress. So, could you please explain your -1?
> 
> You mentioned (and Justin I think asked for details) on protocols changing. 
> Which protocols are you refering to (inter-server protocol, client-server 
> protocol)?

Yes, you (Melanie) have mentioned 'new' protocols but afaik this is the first 
I've heard of this.  Changing OGS1 
protocols is a big upheaval and should be properly laid out and peer reviewed 
before work starts. not after or during. 
Going down the wrong path now will be expensive later on.

If you can point me towards existing documentation on this (if it's part of 
BUST) that would be appreciated.

Thankyou for writing the existing documentation on BUST.  I'm sure if the new 
technology is well received then we can 
deprecate and remove the old servers.

I also don't like the name 'BUST'.  As we've already *very extensively seen*, 
we should not assume a sense of humour on 
the part of others.  A compromise would be to change the server prompt.

> 
> In general I'm +1 for this since I'd really like to see the core settle
> down into a stable state and getting the refactoring behind us is a
> prereq. for that.  I certainly understand the desire for doco so people
> know what they're being asked for feedback on however.

Absolutely.  Asking for a general vote on progress is like proposing a vote on 
motherhood and apple pie.  We can only 
make meaningful votes on specific proposals.

I'm actually now confused on whether you're asking for a vote on eventually 
deprecating the old servers (but not before 
another vote) or on changing basic grid protocols.  I assume it is the former 
rather than the latter.

-- 
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
___
Opensim-dev mailing list
Opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de
https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev

Re: [Opensim-dev] Deprecate OpenSim.Grid.InventoryServer and OpenSim.Grid.AssetServer?

[Justin Clark-Casey]

Mike Dickson wrote:
> On Wed, 2009-07-08 at 14:48 +, Melanie wrote:
>> Charles, I said documentation is on it's way. I would like to get 
>> people's opinions on moving forward with deprecating the old 
>> servers, not people's opinions on the obvious need for documentation.
>>
>> Further, if the old servers are kept, they will have to be 
>> maintained indefinitely and so will the protocols, blocking any real 
>> progress. So, could you please explain your -1?
> 
> You mentioned (and Justin I think asked for details) on protocols changing. 
> Which protocols are you refering to (inter-server protocol, client-server 
> protocol)?

Yes, you (Melanie) have mentioned 'new' protocols but afaik this is the first 
I've heard of this.  Changing OGS1 
protocols is a big upheaval and should be properly laid out and peer reviewed 
before work starts. not after or during. 
Going down the wrong path now will be expensive later on.

If you can point me towards existing documentation on this (if it's part of 
BUST) that would be appreciated.

Thankyou for writing the existing documentation on BUST.  I'm sure if the new 
technology is well received then we can 
deprecate and remove the old servers.

I also don't like the name 'BUST'.  As we've already *very extensively seen*, 
we should not assume a sense of humour on 
the part of others.  A compromise would be to change the server prompt.

> 
> In general I'm +1 for this since I'd really like to see the core settle
> down into a stable state and getting the refactoring behind us is a
> prereq. for that.  I certainly understand the desire for doco so people
> know what they're being asked for feedback on however.

Absolutely.  Asking for a general vote on progress is like proposing a vote on 
motherhood and apple pie.  We can only 
make meaningful votes on specific proposals.

I'm actually now confused on whether you're asking for a vote on eventually 
deprecating the old servers (but not before 
another vote) or on changing basic grid protocols.  I assume it is the former 
rather than the latter.

-- 
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

Re: [Opensim-dev] Deprecate OpenSim.Grid.InventoryServer and OpenSim.Grid.AssetServer?

[Nebadon Izumi]

for those clicking this link you will get a empty page, be sure to at the
DOT to the end. ..!!!

On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 8:44 AM, Melanie  wrote:

> Config file docs for it:
> http://opensimulator.org/wiki/B.U.S.T.
>
> Melanie
>
> BlueWall Slade wrote:
> > ++ MW, sounds like a sane path to follow.
> >
> > Thanks!
> > BlueWall
> >
> > On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 11:25 AM, MW  wrote:
> >
> >> +1 , we need these new servers tested in production use by multiple
> >> people/grids for a reasonable lenght of time. Before we actually remove
> the
> >> old servers from SVN.
> >>
> >> Once they have been tested and there is full documentation then I'm +1
> to
> >> removing the old ones.
> >>
> >> Maybe a starting point would be to set up the configs so by default
> >> everything was configured for the new servers.
> >>
> >> I also would rather a different name than BUST, and also before any
> >> protocol changes are done, see full documentation about the plans.
> >>
> >> We have just gone through a extended period of a lot of refactoring and
> >> rapid changes. I think now is the time to slow the changes down a bit
> and
> >> take a bit of time to reflect on things and test them and get any new
> bugs
> >> out of the system.
> >>
> >> --- On *Wed, 8/7/09, Charles Krinke * wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> From: Charles Krinke 
> >> Subject: Re: [Opensim-dev] Deprecate OpenSim.Grid.InventoryServer and
> >> OpenSim.Grid.AssetServer?
> >> To: opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de
> >> Date: Wednesday, 8 July, 2009, 4:18 PM
> >>
> >> Well, this may or may not be, Melanie. But, I would feel a whole lot
> more
> >> comfortable about the whole proposal *after* at least two different
> groups
> >> report success in configuring BUST and that it is not busted.
> >>
> >> At that point, we need enough clear and concise documentation on the
> wiki
> >> to allow others running grids to be able to change. After a half dozen
> >> different grids have adopted the notion of BUST and determined it is not
> >> busted, then we could consider deprecating our existing UGAIM.
> >>
> >> Charles
> >>
> >> --
> >> *From:* Melanie 
> >> *To:* opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de
> >> *Sent:* Wednesday, July 8, 2009 8:13:04 AM
> >> *Subject:* Re: [Opensim-dev] Deprecate OpenSim.Grid.InventoryServer and
> >> OpenSim.Grid.AssetServer?
> >>
> >> B.U.S.T. is Basic Universal Server Technology. The prompt can be
> >> changed in the configuration file, though, for those without a sense
> >> of humor. I fully expect things to get renamed before 1.0. On the
> >> other hand, the server is named OpenSim.Server.exe, no body parts there!
> >>
> >> As soon as connectors are available for the other services, it will
> >> be able to run them. Part of this is getting the old servers out of
> >> the way, since the new servers use different web protocols and
> >> keeping compatibility with the old servers will not be possible. At
> >> this point, the presence of the old servers blocks evolution.
> >>
> >> Melanie
> >>
> >>
> >> Sean Dague wrote:
> >> > Melanie wrote:
> >> >> The CB version we have in trunk is another implementation of similar
> >> >> concepts. It has some hooks for some features, which were never
> >> >> implemented, that the new system doesn't have yet, but the modular
> >> >> system make them entirely possible.
> >> >>
> >> >> At this point, the CB in trunk is stagnant. It's a stripped down
> >> >> version that is already incompatible with upstream CB and
> >> >> essentially unmaintained. I doubt anyone uses it and would think it
> >> >> could also be dropped or moved.
> >> >
> >> > I'm definitely in favor of getting stuff out of trunk that we think
> >> > isn't getting used at all, eliminates confusion in the code.
> >> >
> >> > Can we come up with a name better than BUST though, as that doesn't
> >> > really mean anything to me? :)  Unrelated question, is it possible to
> >> > run all the grid services (not just inv & asset) via that 1 process?
> >> > That would simplify things for smaller (< 50 region) grids that
> probably
> >> > put all those on the same machine anyway.
> >> >
> >> > -Sean
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> 
> >> >
> >> > ___
> >> > Opensim-dev mailing list
> >> > Opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de<
> http://mc/compose?to=opensim-...@lists.berlios.de>
> >> > https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev
> >> ___
> >> Opensim-dev mailing list
> >> Opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de<
> http://mc/compose?to=opensim-...@lists.berlios.de>
> >> https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev
> >>
> >> -Inline Attachment Follows-
> >>
> >> ___
> >> Opensim-dev mailing list
> >> Opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de<
> http://mc/compose?to=opensim-...@lists.berlios.de>
> >> https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev
> >>
>

Re: [Opensim-dev] Currency

[Sean Hennessee]

One huge difference between having OpenSim assets stolen vs. having real 
money stolen is that a lost asset means the *possible* loss of future 
sales, not the immediate loss of real money. Having money/account 
information stolen has 2 major disadvantages, 1) It's an immediate and 
substantial loss 2) It could be way more than a mere US$10 if your 
entire bank account is stolen or your identity is stolen.

OpenSim is about providing 3d virtual environments, not banking.

Peace,
Sean

Colin B. Withers wrote:
> Hi Neb,
> 
>  
> 
> No, I do get the point, but I am simply not convinced of the arguments.
> 
>  
> 
> Opensim is unsafe, understandably so. Right now, it is in the alpha 
> stage, but that is no reason not to pursue code from alpha, through 
> beta, and onto release.
> 
>  
> 
> Let me put it this way, quite clearly..
> 
>  
> 
> If I, or anyone else, wanted to to use Opensim as a platform for a 
> virtual world, (not during alpha, or beta, but after it is released) and 
> that virtual would was to have commerce, ala SL, and due to the Opensim 
> policy of no currency module in core I went to a third party and 
> procured a currency module, I would have a situation where the two most 
> critical elements of a commerce system, ie:
> 
>  
> 
> a) The asset server (produced by the core developers of opensim), and
> 
>  
> 
> b) A currency module (produced by VW$$$.inc)
> 
>  
> 
> are sourced from different suppliers.
> 
>  
> 
> Now, please explain to me the difference between:
> 
>  
> 
> i) People losing money due to a malfunction in the currency module,
> 
>  
> 
> ii) People losing assets (that have a monetary value, having been bought 
> with real $$$ through the currency module) due to an asset server 
> malfunction?
> 
>  
> 
> It seems to me that there is just as much, or even more risk, of people 
> losing valuable assets from the asset server, than from the currency module.
> 
>  
> 
> Is it then the devs' position that the asset server is (or eventually 
> will be) immune from the risk of loss of assets?
> 
>  
> 
> I do not believe that position could ever be held. Even after so much 
> development work, both on the code and the backbone, SL still loses its 
> residents' assets (the huge losses sustained by residents just 2 or 3 
> weeks ago is testament to that).
> 
>  
> 
> Is there any real difference between:
> 
>  
> 
> 1. Using US$10 to buy inworld currency, that does not show up then on my 
> balance,
> 
> 2. Getting the inworld currency, but later due to a glitch, losing 
> US$10's worth of inworld currency
> 
> 3. Buying an object inworld that costs the inworld currency equivalent 
> to US$10, and the object disappearing from my inventory?
> 
>  
> 
> To my mind, in all three cases, I am US$10 down.
> 
>  
> 
> I just don't see how BOTH these statements can be true at the same time:
> 
>  
> 
> Currency module = big risk
> 
> Asset server = no risk
> 
>  
> 
> And I have never argued that the devs should be responsible for risk (it 
> is the devs themselves that are arguing that they have that risk, and 
> hence the need to divest themselves of it). My position is that all risk 
> is on the grid owner, and that risk can be mitigated (as SL does) by a 
> carefully worded TOS.
> 
>  
> 
> Rock
> 
>  
> 
> *From:* opensim-dev-boun...@lists.berlios.de 
> [mailto:opensim-dev-boun...@lists.berlios.de] *On Behalf Of *Nebadon Izumi
> *Sent:* Wednesday, July 08, 2009 4:39 PM
> *To:* opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de
> *Subject:* Re: [Opensim-dev] Currency
> 
>  
> 
> Rock,
> 
> I do beleive your missing the point entirely, the reason we do not wish 
> to implement any money systems at this time, is exactly for that reason, 
> OpenSImulator is not a safe place to be slinging money around, the asset 
> server is not secure, nothing about opensimulator is secure, yet you 
> people are all arguing that other people take on the risk so that you 
> can have an economic system,  It is this exact argument you are making 
> that has prompted the development team to flat out say no to everyone, 
> you can not expect others to take on risk so you can make a living, if 
> you want this functionality so badly, you should A, develop the system 
> yourself like we said, or B hire a professional who understands security 
> to evalute the risk assessment of this software and do the legal 
> research and you take on the risk and provide the code to everyone if 
> you all think it is so safe and ok to do things that lawyers and 
> security experts say we should not be doing.  You guys can all argue to 
> you are blue in the face, it wont change the fact that this is a 
> monumentally horrible idea right now, we souldnt even be discussing this 
> as an option until well after opensimulator has been proven to be a safe 
> environment, which i will once again repeat, it currently is not!!!
> 
> Neb
> 
> On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 1:06 AM, Colin B. Withers 
> mailto:colin.with...@eumetsat.int>> wrote:
> 
> I fully under

Re: [Opensim-dev] Deprecate OpenSim.Grid.InventoryServer and OpenSim.Grid.AssetServer?

[Melanie]

Config file docs for it:
http://opensimulator.org/wiki/B.U.S.T.

Melanie

BlueWall Slade wrote:
> ++ MW, sounds like a sane path to follow.
> 
> Thanks!
> BlueWall
> 
> On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 11:25 AM, MW  wrote:
> 
>> +1 , we need these new servers tested in production use by multiple
>> people/grids for a reasonable lenght of time. Before we actually remove the
>> old servers from SVN.
>>
>> Once they have been tested and there is full documentation then I'm +1 to
>> removing the old ones.
>>
>> Maybe a starting point would be to set up the configs so by default
>> everything was configured for the new servers.
>>
>> I also would rather a different name than BUST, and also before any
>> protocol changes are done, see full documentation about the plans.
>>
>> We have just gone through a extended period of a lot of refactoring and
>> rapid changes. I think now is the time to slow the changes down a bit and
>> take a bit of time to reflect on things and test them and get any new bugs
>> out of the system.
>>
>> --- On *Wed, 8/7/09, Charles Krinke * wrote:
>>
>>
>> From: Charles Krinke 
>> Subject: Re: [Opensim-dev] Deprecate OpenSim.Grid.InventoryServer and
>> OpenSim.Grid.AssetServer?
>> To: opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de
>> Date: Wednesday, 8 July, 2009, 4:18 PM
>>
>> Well, this may or may not be, Melanie. But, I would feel a whole lot more
>> comfortable about the whole proposal *after* at least two different groups
>> report success in configuring BUST and that it is not busted.
>>
>> At that point, we need enough clear and concise documentation on the wiki
>> to allow others running grids to be able to change. After a half dozen
>> different grids have adopted the notion of BUST and determined it is not
>> busted, then we could consider deprecating our existing UGAIM.
>>
>> Charles
>>
>> --
>> *From:* Melanie 
>> *To:* opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de
>> *Sent:* Wednesday, July 8, 2009 8:13:04 AM
>> *Subject:* Re: [Opensim-dev] Deprecate OpenSim.Grid.InventoryServer and
>> OpenSim.Grid.AssetServer?
>>
>> B.U.S.T. is Basic Universal Server Technology. The prompt can be
>> changed in the configuration file, though, for those without a sense
>> of humor. I fully expect things to get renamed before 1.0. On the
>> other hand, the server is named OpenSim.Server.exe, no body parts there!
>>
>> As soon as connectors are available for the other services, it will
>> be able to run them. Part of this is getting the old servers out of
>> the way, since the new servers use different web protocols and
>> keeping compatibility with the old servers will not be possible. At
>> this point, the presence of the old servers blocks evolution.
>>
>> Melanie
>>
>>
>> Sean Dague wrote:
>> > Melanie wrote:
>> >> The CB version we have in trunk is another implementation of similar
>> >> concepts. It has some hooks for some features, which were never
>> >> implemented, that the new system doesn't have yet, but the modular
>> >> system make them entirely possible.
>> >>
>> >> At this point, the CB in trunk is stagnant. It's a stripped down
>> >> version that is already incompatible with upstream CB and
>> >> essentially unmaintained. I doubt anyone uses it and would think it
>> >> could also be dropped or moved.
>> >
>> > I'm definitely in favor of getting stuff out of trunk that we think
>> > isn't getting used at all, eliminates confusion in the code.
>> >
>> > Can we come up with a name better than BUST though, as that doesn't
>> > really mean anything to me? :)  Unrelated question, is it possible to
>> > run all the grid services (not just inv & asset) via that 1 process?
>> > That would simplify things for smaller (< 50 region) grids that probably
>> > put all those on the same machine anyway.
>> >
>> > -Sean
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > 
>> >
>> > ___
>> > 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
>>
>> -Inline Attachment Follows-
>>
>> ___
>> 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
>>
>>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ___
> Opensim-dev mailing list
> Opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de
> https://lists.berlios.de/mail

Re: [Opensim-dev] Deprecate OpenSim.Grid.InventoryServer and OpenSim.Grid.AssetServer?

[BlueWall Slade]

++ MW, sounds like a sane path to follow.

Thanks!
BlueWall

On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 11:25 AM, MW  wrote:

> +1 , we need these new servers tested in production use by multiple
> people/grids for a reasonable lenght of time. Before we actually remove the
> old servers from SVN.
>
> Once they have been tested and there is full documentation then I'm +1 to
> removing the old ones.
>
> Maybe a starting point would be to set up the configs so by default
> everything was configured for the new servers.
>
> I also would rather a different name than BUST, and also before any
> protocol changes are done, see full documentation about the plans.
>
> We have just gone through a extended period of a lot of refactoring and
> rapid changes. I think now is the time to slow the changes down a bit and
> take a bit of time to reflect on things and test them and get any new bugs
> out of the system.
>
> --- On *Wed, 8/7/09, Charles Krinke * wrote:
>
>
> From: Charles Krinke 
> Subject: Re: [Opensim-dev] Deprecate OpenSim.Grid.InventoryServer and
> OpenSim.Grid.AssetServer?
> To: opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de
> Date: Wednesday, 8 July, 2009, 4:18 PM
>
> Well, this may or may not be, Melanie. But, I would feel a whole lot more
> comfortable about the whole proposal *after* at least two different groups
> report success in configuring BUST and that it is not busted.
>
> At that point, we need enough clear and concise documentation on the wiki
> to allow others running grids to be able to change. After a half dozen
> different grids have adopted the notion of BUST and determined it is not
> busted, then we could consider deprecating our existing UGAIM.
>
> Charles
>
> --
> *From:* Melanie 
> *To:* opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de
> *Sent:* Wednesday, July 8, 2009 8:13:04 AM
> *Subject:* Re: [Opensim-dev] Deprecate OpenSim.Grid.InventoryServer and
> OpenSim.Grid.AssetServer?
>
> B.U.S.T. is Basic Universal Server Technology. The prompt can be
> changed in the configuration file, though, for those without a sense
> of humor. I fully expect things to get renamed before 1.0. On the
> other hand, the server is named OpenSim.Server.exe, no body parts there!
>
> As soon as connectors are available for the other services, it will
> be able to run them. Part of this is getting the old servers out of
> the way, since the new servers use different web protocols and
> keeping compatibility with the old servers will not be possible. At
> this point, the presence of the old servers blocks evolution.
>
> Melanie
>
>
> Sean Dague wrote:
> > Melanie wrote:
> >> The CB version we have in trunk is another implementation of similar
> >> concepts. It has some hooks for some features, which were never
> >> implemented, that the new system doesn't have yet, but the modular
> >> system make them entirely possible.
> >>
> >> At this point, the CB in trunk is stagnant. It's a stripped down
> >> version that is already incompatible with upstream CB and
> >> essentially unmaintained. I doubt anyone uses it and would think it
> >> could also be dropped or moved.
> >
> > I'm definitely in favor of getting stuff out of trunk that we think
> > isn't getting used at all, eliminates confusion in the code.
> >
> > Can we come up with a name better than BUST though, as that doesn't
> > really mean anything to me? :)  Unrelated question, is it possible to
> > run all the grid services (not just inv & asset) via that 1 process?
> > That would simplify things for smaller (< 50 region) grids that probably
> > put all those on the same machine anyway.
> >
> > -Sean
> >
> >
> >
> > 
> >
> > ___
> > 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
>
> -Inline Attachment Follows-
>
> ___
> 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
>
>
___
Opensim-dev mailing list
Opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de
https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev

Re: [Opensim-dev] Currency

[Nebadon Izumi]

maybe you can state to me where open simulator claims it is ready in anyway
for production levels though, the opensimulator team makes zero claims that
this software is in anyway ready for any commercial purposes, I would say if
your uploading items into opensimulator that have monetary value, and you
expect them to be secure, you are making a very very big mistake, not only
do we not recommend you not use the economic system, we also recommend that
anything that needs to be secured or not copied or stolen, not be uploaded
into opensimulator, the risk is no differnt for assets than currency, and to
be honest neither should be used for commercial tasks at this point, i am
sure others will disagree with me, but i would say those people probably
have not consulted with a Law Firm or Technology Security Experts, if you
use OpenSimulator in anyway you are taking on major risk at this stage of
the game, and expecting the Core Devs to take on risk for you is a fantasy.
The hooks are there now for anyone to develop a monitary system and quite
infact there is a sample one available right now from Deepthink on the
forge, and you will see MAJOR warnings like this made by the creators of the
software:

"*NOTE*: This software is provided 'as-is'.
*DeepThink*?makes
absolutely no guaruntees as to the reliability or fitness of purpose.
This module deals with running a fictional currency, and while a best effort
has been made to securing this software and preventing bugs, *it should not
be relied upon for absolute security*. *USE AT YOUR OWN RISK*.

 *Warning for those considering RMT trade with this:*

If you are planning to put this into production with real money transfers,
and you do not have the time to personally proceed with a *full audit of
this codebase* (or hire someone to give you assurances), you are a fool and
likely to get burnt.* If you do not have a advanced understanding of
computer security, database security and financial security* and do not hire
anyone who can provide those understandings,* then you should never consider
utilizing this for nonfictional currencies*.

*Furthermore, this software is not provided with any warranty or fitness of
purpose, neither the developers
(DeepThink?),
nor the 
OpenSimulator?developers
(or any associates) are liable for any damages caused by
utilizing this software. This is provided to use at your own risk."*

Now if the creators of this "Adam Frisby" thinks its bad to use the software
he created, btw who is also a very Active core developer, if you guys think
you can do a better job and take on all the risk go for it, i think in the
end you will likely regret doing so at this stage of the game, but no one is
stopping any of you from doing the work and providing it for everyone to
use..  Otherwise i see no need to further this conversation anymore as the
core devs are not going to do this work for you, end of story.


Neb


**
On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 8:17 AM, Colin B. Withers  wrote:

>  Hi Neb,
>
>
>
> No, I do get the point, but I am simply not convinced of the arguments.
>
>
>
> Opensim is unsafe, understandably so. Right now, it is in the alpha stage,
> but that is no reason not to pursue code from alpha, through beta, and onto
> release.
>
>
>
> Let me put it this way, quite clearly..
>
>
>
> If I, or anyone else, wanted to to use Opensim as a platform for a virtual
> world, (not during alpha, or beta, but after it is released) and that
> virtual would was to have commerce, ala SL, and due to the Opensim policy of
> no currency module in core I went to a third party and procured a currency
> module, I would have a situation where the two most critical elements of a
> commerce system, ie:
>
>
>
> a) The asset server (produced by the core developers of opensim), and
>
>
>
> b) A currency module (produced by VW$$$.inc)
>
>
>
> are sourced from different suppliers.
>
>
>
> Now, please explain to me the difference between:
>
>
>
> i) People losing money due to a malfunction in the currency module,
>
>
>
> ii) People losing assets (that have a monetary value, having been bought
> with real $$$ through the currency module) due to an asset server
> malfunction?
>
>
>
> It seems to me that there is just as much, or even more risk, of people
> losing valuable assets from the asset server, than from the currency module.
>
>
>
> Is it then the devs' position that the asset server is (or eventually will
> be) immune from the risk of loss of assets?
>
>
>
> I do not believe that position could ever be held. Even after so much
> development work, both on the code and the backbone, SL still loses its
> residents' assets (the huge losses sustained by residents just 2 or 3 weeks
> ago is testament to that).
>
>
>

Re: [Opensim-dev] Deprecate OpenSim.Grid.InventoryServer and OpenSim.Grid.AssetServer?

[MW]

+1 , we need these new servers tested in production use by multiple 
people/grids for a reasonable lenght of time. Before we actually remove the old 
servers from SVN.

Once they have been tested and there is full documentation then I'm +1 to 
removing the old ones.

Maybe a starting point would be to set up the configs so by default everything 
was configured for the new servers.

I also would rather a different name than BUST, and also before any protocol 
changes are done, see full documentation about the plans. 

We have just gone through a extended period of a lot of refactoring and rapid 
changes. I think now is the time to slow the changes down a bit and take a bit 
of time to reflect on things and test them and get any new bugs out of the 
system.

--- On Wed, 8/7/09, Charles Krinke  wrote:

From: Charles Krinke 
Subject: Re: [Opensim-dev] Deprecate OpenSim.Grid.InventoryServer and 
OpenSim.Grid.AssetServer?
To: opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de
Date: Wednesday, 8 July, 2009, 4:18 PM

Well, this may or may not be, Melanie. But, I would feel a whole lot more 
comfortable about the whole proposal *after* at least two different groups 
report success in configuring BUST and that it is not busted.

At that point, we need enough clear and concise documentation on the wiki to 
allow others running grids to be able to change. After a half dozen different 
grids have adopted the notion of BUST and determined it is not busted, then we 
could consider deprecating our existing UGAIM.

Charles

From: Melanie 
To: opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de
Sent: Wednesday, July 8, 2009 8:13:04 AM
Subject: Re: [Opensim-dev] Deprecate OpenSim.Grid.InventoryServer and 
OpenSim.Grid.AssetServer?


B.U.S.T. is Basic Universal Server Technology. The prompt can be 
changed in the configuration file, though, for those without a sense 
of humor. I fully expect things to get renamed before 1.0. On the 
other hand, the server is named OpenSim.Server.exe, no body parts there!

As soon as connectors are available for the other services, it will 
be able to run them. Part of this is getting the old servers out of 
the way, since the new servers use different web protocols and 
keeping compatibility with the old servers will not be possible. At 
this point, the presence of the old servers blocks evolution.

Melanie


Sean Dague wrote:
> Melanie wrote:
>> The CB version we have in trunk is another implementation of similar 
>> concepts. It has some hooks for some features, which were never 
>> implemented, that the new system doesn't have yet, but the modular 
>> system make
 them entirely possible.
>> 
>> At this point, the CB in trunk is stagnant. It's a stripped down 
>> version that is already incompatible with upstream CB and 
>> essentially unmaintained. I doubt anyone uses it and would think it 
>> could also be dropped or moved.
> 
> I'm definitely in favor of getting stuff out of trunk that we think
> isn't getting used at all, eliminates confusion in the code.
> 
> Can we come up with a name better than BUST though, as that doesn't
> really mean anything to me? :)  Unrelated question, is it possible to
> run all the grid services (not just inv & asset) via that 1 process?
> That would simplify things for smaller (< 50 region) grids that probably
> put all those on the same machine anyway.
> 
>     -Sean
> 
> 
> 
>
 
> 
> ___
> 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

-Inline Attachment Follows-

___
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

Re: [Opensim-dev] Deprecate OpenSim.Grid.InventoryServer and OpenSim.Grid.AssetServer?

[Melanie]

I'm not looking for a "big bang" change. What i want to establish is 
the _basic willingness_ to _at some future time_ drop the old grid 
servers.

Not a set of conditions and holding back on a commitment. We really 
need, as a team, to come to the point where we all say "Yes, let's 
get rid of the old servers _as soon as we can_". It's that agreement 
in principle I'm looking for, and that should not be toed to any 
conditions. Conditions are details that can be discussed and voted 
on when the time comes to actually drop a server. However, for the 
architectural decisions that have to be made at this time, it would 
be very helpful to have a "no overriding issues/concerns with 
eventually removing the old servers" vote.

Melanie


Charles Krinke wrote:
> I would also seem reasonable to me that some smaller grids test the 'BUST' 
> notion and report success before we move forward in considering in obsoleting 
> our existing grid server executables.
> 
> Charles
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From: Sean Dague 
> To: opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de
> Sent: Wednesday, July 8, 2009 8:04:27 AM
> Subject: Re: [Opensim-dev] Deprecate OpenSim.Grid.InventoryServer and 
> OpenSim.Grid.AssetServer?
> 
> Melanie wrote:
>> The CB version we have in trunk is another implementation of similar 
>> concepts. It has some hooks for some features, which were never 
>> implemented, that the new system doesn't have yet, but the modular 
>> system make them entirely possible.
>> 
>> At this point, the CB in trunk is stagnant. It's a stripped down 
>> version that is already incompatible with upstream CB and 
>> essentially unmaintained. I doubt anyone uses it and would think it 
>> could also be dropped or moved.
> 
> I'm definitely in favor of getting stuff out of trunk that we think
> isn't getting used at all, eliminates confusion in the code.
> 
> Can we come up with a name better than BUST though, as that doesn't
> really mean anything to me? :)  Unrelated question, is it possible to
> run all the grid services (not just inv & asset) via that 1 process?
> That would simplify things for smaller (< 50 region) grids that probably
> put all those on the same machine anyway.
> 
> -Sean
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ___
> 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

Re: [Opensim-dev] Deprecate OpenSim.Grid.InventoryServer and OpenSim.Grid.AssetServer?

[Charles Krinke]

Well, this may or may not be, Melanie. But, I would feel a whole lot more 
comfortable about the whole proposal *after* at least two different groups 
report success in configuring BUST and that it is not busted.

At that point, we need enough clear and concise documentation on the wiki to 
allow others running grids to be able to change. After a half dozen different 
grids have adopted the notion of BUST and determined it is not busted, then we 
could consider deprecating our existing UGAIM.

Charles





From: Melanie 
To: opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de
Sent: Wednesday, July 8, 2009 8:13:04 AM
Subject: Re: [Opensim-dev] Deprecate OpenSim.Grid.InventoryServer and 
OpenSim.Grid.AssetServer?

B.U.S.T. is Basic Universal Server Technology. The prompt can be 
changed in the configuration file, though, for those without a sense 
of humor. I fully expect things to get renamed before 1.0. On the 
other hand, the server is named OpenSim.Server.exe, no body parts there!

As soon as connectors are available for the other services, it will 
be able to run them. Part of this is getting the old servers out of 
the way, since the new servers use different web protocols and 
keeping compatibility with the old servers will not be possible. At 
this point, the presence of the old servers blocks evolution.

Melanie


Sean Dague wrote:
> Melanie wrote:
>> The CB version we have in trunk is another implementation of similar 
>> concepts. It has some hooks for some features, which were never 
>> implemented, that the new system doesn't have yet, but the modular 
>> system make them entirely possible.
>> 
>> At this point, the CB in trunk is stagnant. It's a stripped down 
>> version that is already incompatible with upstream CB and 
>> essentially unmaintained. I doubt anyone uses it and would think it 
>> could also be dropped or moved.
> 
> I'm definitely in favor of getting stuff out of trunk that we think
> isn't getting used at all, eliminates confusion in the code.
> 
> Can we come up with a name better than BUST though, as that doesn't
> really mean anything to me? :)  Unrelated question, is it possible to
> run all the grid services (not just inv & asset) via that 1 process?
> That would simplify things for smaller (< 50 region) grids that probably
> put all those on the same machine anyway.
> 
> -Sean
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ___
> 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
___
Opensim-dev mailing list
Opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de
https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev

Re: [Opensim-dev] Currency

[Colin B. Withers]

Hi Neb,

No, I do get the point, but I am simply not convinced of the arguments.

Opensim is unsafe, understandably so. Right now, it is in the alpha stage, but 
that is no reason not to pursue code from alpha, through beta, and onto release.

Let me put it this way, quite clearly..

If I, or anyone else, wanted to to use Opensim as a platform for a virtual 
world, (not during alpha, or beta, but after it is released) and that virtual 
would was to have commerce, ala SL, and due to the Opensim policy of no 
currency module in core I went to a third party and procured a currency module, 
I would have a situation where the two most critical elements of a commerce 
system, ie:

a) The asset server (produced by the core developers of opensim), and

b) A currency module (produced by VW$$$.inc)

are sourced from different suppliers.

Now, please explain to me the difference between:

i) People losing money due to a malfunction in the currency module,

ii) People losing assets (that have a monetary value, having been bought with 
real $$$ through the currency module) due to an asset server malfunction?

It seems to me that there is just as much, or even more risk, of people losing 
valuable assets from the asset server, than from the currency module.

Is it then the devs' position that the asset server is (or eventually will be) 
immune from the risk of loss of assets?

I do not believe that position could ever be held. Even after so much 
development work, both on the code and the backbone, SL still loses its 
residents' assets (the huge losses sustained by residents just 2 or 3 weeks ago 
is testament to that).

Is there any real difference between:

1. Using US$10 to buy inworld currency, that does not show up then on my 
balance,
2. Getting the inworld currency, but later due to a glitch, losing US$10's 
worth of inworld currency
3. Buying an object inworld that costs the inworld currency equivalent to 
US$10, and the object disappearing from my inventory?

To my mind, in all three cases, I am US$10 down.

I just don't see how BOTH these statements can be true at the same time:

Currency module = big risk
Asset server = no risk

And I have never argued that the devs should be responsible for risk (it is the 
devs themselves that are arguing that they have that risk, and hence the need 
to divest themselves of it). My position is that all risk is on the grid owner, 
and that risk can be mitigated (as SL does) by a carefully worded TOS.

Rock

From: opensim-dev-boun...@lists.berlios.de 
[mailto:opensim-dev-boun...@lists.berlios.de] On Behalf Of Nebadon Izumi
Sent: Wednesday, July 08, 2009 4:39 PM
To: opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de
Subject: Re: [Opensim-dev] Currency

Rock,

I do beleive your missing the point entirely, the reason we do not wish to 
implement any money systems at this time, is exactly for that reason, 
OpenSImulator is not a safe place to be slinging money around, the asset server 
is not secure, nothing about opensimulator is secure, yet you people are all 
arguing that other people take on the risk so that you can have an economic 
system,  It is this exact argument you are making that has prompted the 
development team to flat out say no to everyone, you can not expect others to 
take on risk so you can make a living, if you want this functionality so badly, 
you should A, develop the system yourself like we said, or B hire a 
professional who understands security to evalute the risk assessment of this 
software and do the legal research and you take on the risk and provide the 
code to everyone if you all think it is so safe and ok to do things that 
lawyers and security experts say we should not be doing.  You guys can all 
argue to you are blue in the face, it wont change the fact that this is a 
monumentally horrible idea right now, we souldnt even be discussing this as an 
option until well after opensimulator has been proven to be a safe environment, 
which i will once again repeat, it currently is not!!!

Neb
On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 1:06 AM, Colin B. Withers 
mailto:colin.with...@eumetsat.int>> wrote:

I fully understand that argument Stefan (although I do not agree with it). What 
I do not understand is how a currency module can be considered risky, but the 
entire asset server (holding everything that people have bought with an 
external currency module) is not considered even more of a risk.



Rock

From: 
opensim-dev-boun...@lists.berlios.de
 
[mailto:opensim-dev-boun...@lists.berlios.de]
 On Behalf Of Stefan Andersson
Sent: Wednesday, July 08, 2009 7:54 AM

To: opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de
Subject: Re: [Opensim-dev] Currency



Rock,



An implementation of a functional monetary system has been declared as out of 
scope for OpenSim. It is something that has to go into the custom 
implementation/third party provider layer.



There is a live and ongoing discu

Re: [Opensim-dev] Deprecate OpenSim.Grid.InventoryServer and OpenSim.Grid.AssetServer?

[Charles Krinke]

I would also seem reasonable to me that some smaller grids test the 'BUST' 
notion and report success before we move forward in considering in obsoleting 
our existing grid server executables.

Charles





From: Sean Dague 
To: opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de
Sent: Wednesday, July 8, 2009 8:04:27 AM
Subject: Re: [Opensim-dev] Deprecate OpenSim.Grid.InventoryServer and 
OpenSim.Grid.AssetServer?

Melanie wrote:
> The CB version we have in trunk is another implementation of similar 
> concepts. It has some hooks for some features, which were never 
> implemented, that the new system doesn't have yet, but the modular 
> system make them entirely possible.
> 
> At this point, the CB in trunk is stagnant. It's a stripped down 
> version that is already incompatible with upstream CB and 
> essentially unmaintained. I doubt anyone uses it and would think it 
> could also be dropped or moved.

I'm definitely in favor of getting stuff out of trunk that we think
isn't getting used at all, eliminates confusion in the code.

Can we come up with a name better than BUST though, as that doesn't
really mean anything to me? :)  Unrelated question, is it possible to
run all the grid services (not just inv & asset) via that 1 process?
That would simplify things for smaller (< 50 region) grids that probably
put all those on the same machine anyway.

-Sean

-- 
__

Sean Dague   Mid-Hudson Valley
sda...@gmail.com Linux Users Group
http://dague.nethttp://mhvlug.org

There is no silver bullet.  Plus, werewolves make better neighbors
than zombies, and they tend to keep the vampire population down.
_
Opensim-dev mailing list
Opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de
https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev

Re: [Opensim-dev] Deprecate OpenSim.Grid.InventoryServer and OpenSim.Grid.AssetServer?

[Melanie]

B.U.S.T. is Basic Universal Server Technology. The prompt can be 
changed in the configuration file, though, for those without a sense 
of humor. I fully expect things to get renamed before 1.0. On the 
other hand, the server is named OpenSim.Server.exe, no body parts there!

As soon as connectors are available for the other services, it will 
be able to run them. Part of this is getting the old servers out of 
the way, since the new servers use different web protocols and 
keeping compatibility with the old servers will not be possible. At 
this point, the presence of the old servers blocks evolution.

Melanie


Sean Dague wrote:
> Melanie wrote:
>> The CB version we have in trunk is another implementation of similar 
>> concepts. It has some hooks for some features, which were never 
>> implemented, that the new system doesn't have yet, but the modular 
>> system make them entirely possible.
>> 
>> At this point, the CB in trunk is stagnant. It's a stripped down 
>> version that is already incompatible with upstream CB and 
>> essentially unmaintained. I doubt anyone uses it and would think it 
>> could also be dropped or moved.
> 
> I'm definitely in favor of getting stuff out of trunk that we think
> isn't getting used at all, eliminates confusion in the code.
> 
> Can we come up with a name better than BUST though, as that doesn't
> really mean anything to me? :)  Unrelated question, is it possible to
> run all the grid services (not just inv & asset) via that 1 process?
> That would simplify things for smaller (< 50 region) grids that probably
> put all those on the same machine anyway.
> 
>   -Sean
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ___
> 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

Re: [Opensim-dev] Deprecate OpenSim.Grid.InventoryServer and OpenSim.Grid.AssetServer?

[Sean Dague]

Melanie wrote:
> The CB version we have in trunk is another implementation of similar 
> concepts. It has some hooks for some features, which were never 
> implemented, that the new system doesn't have yet, but the modular 
> system make them entirely possible.
> 
> At this point, the CB in trunk is stagnant. It's a stripped down 
> version that is already incompatible with upstream CB and 
> essentially unmaintained. I doubt anyone uses it and would think it 
> could also be dropped or moved.

I'm definitely in favor of getting stuff out of trunk that we think
isn't getting used at all, eliminates confusion in the code.

Can we come up with a name better than BUST though, as that doesn't
really mean anything to me? :)  Unrelated question, is it possible to
run all the grid services (not just inv & asset) via that 1 process?
That would simplify things for smaller (< 50 region) grids that probably
put all those on the same machine anyway.

-Sean

-- 
__

Sean Dague   Mid-Hudson Valley
sda...@gmail.com Linux Users Group
http://dague.net http://mhvlug.org

There is no silver bullet.  Plus, werewolves make better neighbors
than zombies, and they tend to keep the vampire population down.
__




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
Opensim-dev mailing list
Opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de
https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev

Re: [Opensim-dev] Currency

[Aldon Hynes]

Stefan, et al.,

  I'm glad you think this is a good idea.  I'm heading on vacation for a
couple weeks leaving this weekend, so I'll be hard to reach.  However, if we
can get the project up and going before I go, that would be great.
Questions I have:  Who wrote and/or has copies of the
SampleMoney and OpenCurrency code?  Who has any design documents are would
be willing to create some design documents?



  If you want to help, please contact me directly.  I can set up a Wiki on
one of my hosting accounts and try to get the ball rolling, but I'll need
help.



Aldon

  -Original Message-
  > So, for any of you that are really interested in OpenSimCurrency, what
do
  > you say to starting a parallel project that provides a third party
currency
  > framework that can run in OpenSim?

  Go for it. Host it on the forge, create a wiki for it. Can't wait to see
the first release.

  Also, I believe there is still an Freenode IRC channel called
#opensim-money.

  /Stefan


___
Opensim-dev mailing list
Opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de
https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev

Re: [Opensim-dev] Deprecate OpenSim.Grid.InventoryServer and OpenSim.Grid.AssetServer?

[Mike Dickson]

On Wed, 2009-07-08 at 14:48 +, Melanie wrote:
> Charles, I said documentation is on it's way. I would like to get 
> people's opinions on moving forward with deprecating the old 
> servers, not people's opinions on the obvious need for documentation.
> 
> Further, if the old servers are kept, they will have to be 
> maintained indefinitely and so will the protocols, blocking any real 
> progress. So, could you please explain your -1?

You mentioned (and Justin I think asked for details) on protocols changing. 
Which protocols are you refering to (inter-server protocol, client-server 
protocol)?

In general I'm +1 for this since I'd really like to see the core settle
down into a stable state and getting the refactoring behind us is a
prereq. for that.  I certainly understand the desire for doco so people
know what they're being asked for feedback on however.



___
Opensim-dev mailing list
Opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de
https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev

Re: [Opensim-dev] Deprecate OpenSim.Grid.InventoryServer and OpenSim.Grid.AssetServer?

[Melanie]

Information on the B.U.S.T. server and how to set up a grid with it 
is at http://opensimulator.org/wiki/Configuration. The previous 
documentation has been moved to 
http://opensimulator.org/wiki/LegacyServers and linked from the 
Configuration page

Melanie

Melanie wrote:
> What is "proposed" is actually already been discussed and well 
> underway. It's already runnable, too.
> 
> This is not about introducing the new servers, that has already 
> happened through Diva's and my work, it's about removing the old. I 
> only asked about removing the old servers, and I said documentation 
> on the new ones is underway.
> 
> What I would like to see is agreement _in principle_ on removing the 
> old cruft.
> 
> Melanie
> 
> 
> Charles Krinke wrote:
>> Certainly.
>> 
>> You need to explain what it is your are proposing. It is not reasonable to 
>> vote +1 on an unknown. 
>> 
>> So, please describe your vision, in writing, on the wiki, and then folks can 
>> feel comfortable about what you are proposing. 
>> 
>> Lets not get the cart before the horse.
>> 
>> Charles
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> From: Melanie 
>> To: opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de
>> Sent: Wednesday, July 8, 2009 7:48:08 AM
>> Subject: Re: [Opensim-dev] Deprecate OpenSim.Grid.InventoryServer and 
>> OpenSim.Grid.AssetServer?
>> 
>> Charles, I said documentation is on it's way. I would like to get 
>> people's opinions on moving forward with deprecating the old 
>> servers, not people's opinions on the obvious need for documentation.
>> 
>> Further, if the old servers are kept, they will have to be 
>> maintained indefinitely and so will the protocols, blocking any real 
>> progress. So, could you please explain your -1?
>> 
>> Regards,
>> 
>> Melanie
>> 
>> Charles Krinke wrote:
>>> -1. Lets not remove any existing OpenSim servers.
>>> 
>>> Lets *start* with some documentation so we know what is being proposed.
>>> 
>>> Charles 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> From: Melanie 
>>> To: opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de
>>> Sent: Wednesday, July 8, 2009 7:28:37 AM
>>> Subject: Re: [Opensim-dev] Deprecate OpenSim.Grid.InventoryServer and 
>>> OpenSim.Grid.AssetServer?
>>> 
>>> Documentation is on it's way. Could we get the voting back on track 
>>> on the question of whether to deprecate/remove the old servers, 
>>> instead of voting on the obvious need for documentation?
>>> 
>>> Melanie
>>> 
>>> Charles Krinke wrote:
 +1 also. We need some wiki documentation for BUST to describe how folks 
 can configure and use it.
 
 Charles
 
 
 
 
 
 From: Justin Clark-Casey 
 To: opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de
 Sent: Wednesday, July 8, 2009 3:51:29 AM
 Subject: Re: [Opensim-dev] Deprecate OpenSim.Grid.InventoryServer and 
 OpenSim.Grid.AssetServer?
 
 Cristina Videira Lopes wrote:
> What is BUST?
> Also, is there already documentation about the new server shell? We need 
> to document it before retiring the old servers. I'd do it, but I'm 
> completely out of context these days, so it won't happen [on my side] 
> for another couple of weeks.
 
 +1.  One can't responsibly replace existing documented parts of the 
 infrastructure until there is wiki documentation on 
 the new stuff.
 
 
 
 
 
 ___
 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
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> ___
>>> 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
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> ___
>> 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
> 
> 
___
Opensim-dev mailing list
Opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de
https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev

Re: [Opensim-dev] Deprecate OpenSim.Grid.InventoryServer and OpenSim.Grid.AssetServer?

[Melanie]

What is "proposed" is actually already been discussed and well 
underway. It's already runnable, too.

This is not about introducing the new servers, that has already 
happened through Diva's and my work, it's about removing the old. I 
only asked about removing the old servers, and I said documentation 
on the new ones is underway.

What I would like to see is agreement _in principle_ on removing the 
old cruft.

Melanie


Charles Krinke wrote:
> Certainly.
> 
> You need to explain what it is your are proposing. It is not reasonable to 
> vote +1 on an unknown. 
> 
> So, please describe your vision, in writing, on the wiki, and then folks can 
> feel comfortable about what you are proposing. 
> 
> Lets not get the cart before the horse.
> 
> Charles
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From: Melanie 
> To: opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de
> Sent: Wednesday, July 8, 2009 7:48:08 AM
> Subject: Re: [Opensim-dev] Deprecate OpenSim.Grid.InventoryServer and 
> OpenSim.Grid.AssetServer?
> 
> Charles, I said documentation is on it's way. I would like to get 
> people's opinions on moving forward with deprecating the old 
> servers, not people's opinions on the obvious need for documentation.
> 
> Further, if the old servers are kept, they will have to be 
> maintained indefinitely and so will the protocols, blocking any real 
> progress. So, could you please explain your -1?
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Melanie
> 
> Charles Krinke wrote:
>> -1. Lets not remove any existing OpenSim servers.
>> 
>> Lets *start* with some documentation so we know what is being proposed.
>> 
>> Charles 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> From: Melanie 
>> To: opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de
>> Sent: Wednesday, July 8, 2009 7:28:37 AM
>> Subject: Re: [Opensim-dev] Deprecate OpenSim.Grid.InventoryServer and 
>> OpenSim.Grid.AssetServer?
>> 
>> Documentation is on it's way. Could we get the voting back on track 
>> on the question of whether to deprecate/remove the old servers, 
>> instead of voting on the obvious need for documentation?
>> 
>> Melanie
>> 
>> Charles Krinke wrote:
>>> +1 also. We need some wiki documentation for BUST to describe how folks can 
>>> configure and use it.
>>> 
>>> Charles
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> From: Justin Clark-Casey 
>>> To: opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de
>>> Sent: Wednesday, July 8, 2009 3:51:29 AM
>>> Subject: Re: [Opensim-dev] Deprecate OpenSim.Grid.InventoryServer and 
>>> OpenSim.Grid.AssetServer?
>>> 
>>> Cristina Videira Lopes wrote:
 What is BUST?
 Also, is there already documentation about the new server shell? We need 
 to document it before retiring the old servers. I'd do it, but I'm 
 completely out of context these days, so it won't happen [on my side] 
 for another couple of weeks.
>>> 
>>> +1.  One can't responsibly replace existing documented parts of the 
>>> infrastructure until there is wiki documentation on 
>>> the new stuff.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> ___
>>> 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
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> ___
>> 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
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ___
> 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

Re: [Opensim-dev] Deprecate OpenSim.Grid.InventoryServer and OpenSim.Grid.AssetServer?

[Charles Krinke]

Certainly.

You need to explain what it is your are proposing. It is not reasonable to vote 
+1 on an unknown. 

So, please describe your vision, in writing, on the wiki, and then folks can 
feel comfortable about what you are proposing. 

Lets not get the cart before the horse.

Charles





From: Melanie 
To: opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de
Sent: Wednesday, July 8, 2009 7:48:08 AM
Subject: Re: [Opensim-dev] Deprecate OpenSim.Grid.InventoryServer and 
OpenSim.Grid.AssetServer?

Charles, I said documentation is on it's way. I would like to get 
people's opinions on moving forward with deprecating the old 
servers, not people's opinions on the obvious need for documentation.

Further, if the old servers are kept, they will have to be 
maintained indefinitely and so will the protocols, blocking any real 
progress. So, could you please explain your -1?

Regards,

Melanie

Charles Krinke wrote:
> -1. Lets not remove any existing OpenSim servers.
> 
> Lets *start* with some documentation so we know what is being proposed.
> 
> Charles 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From: Melanie 
> To: opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de
> Sent: Wednesday, July 8, 2009 7:28:37 AM
> Subject: Re: [Opensim-dev] Deprecate OpenSim.Grid.InventoryServer and 
> OpenSim.Grid.AssetServer?
> 
> Documentation is on it's way. Could we get the voting back on track 
> on the question of whether to deprecate/remove the old servers, 
> instead of voting on the obvious need for documentation?
> 
> Melanie
> 
> Charles Krinke wrote:
>> +1 also. We need some wiki documentation for BUST to describe how folks can 
>> configure and use it.
>> 
>> Charles
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> From: Justin Clark-Casey 
>> To: opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de
>> Sent: Wednesday, July 8, 2009 3:51:29 AM
>> Subject: Re: [Opensim-dev] Deprecate OpenSim.Grid.InventoryServer and 
>> OpenSim.Grid.AssetServer?
>> 
>> Cristina Videira Lopes wrote:
>>> What is BUST?
>>> Also, is there already documentation about the new server shell? We need 
>>> to document it before retiring the old servers. I'd do it, but I'm 
>>> completely out of context these days, so it won't happen [on my side] 
>>> for another couple of weeks.
>> 
>> +1.  One can't responsibly replace existing documented parts of the 
>> infrastructure until there is wiki documentation on 
>> the new stuff.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> ___
>> 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
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ___
> 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
___
Opensim-dev mailing list
Opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de
https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev

Re: [Opensim-dev] Currency

[Len Brown]

Very well put, Neb.  Some, it seems, argue simply for the sake of argument
and the perception that open-source equates "free labor."

I myself have had disagreements with certain other open-source solutions and
I choose to take advantage of my disagreeable nature and learned enough C#
to implement the changes I desired that no one else would.

In the end I gained a great tool and accomplished a customized application
to suit my particular needs at the time.

- Len

On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 9:39 AM, Nebadon Izumi  wrote:

> Rock,
>
> I do beleive your missing the point entirely, the reason we do not wish to
> implement any money systems at this time, is exactly for that reason,
> OpenSImulator is not a safe place to be slinging money around, the asset
> server is not secure, nothing about opensimulator is secure, yet you people
> are all arguing that other people take on the risk so that you can have an
> economic system,  It is this exact argument you are making that has prompted
> the development team to flat out say no to everyone, you can not expect
> others to take on risk so you can make a living, if you want this
> functionality so badly, you should A, develop the system yourself like we
> said, or B hire a professional who understands security to evalute the risk
> assessment of this software and do the legal research and you take on the
> risk and provide the code to everyone if you all think it is so safe and ok
> to do things that lawyers and security experts say we should not be doing.
> You guys can all argue to you are blue in the face, it wont change the fact
> that this is a monumentally horrible idea right now, we souldnt even be
> discussing this as an option until well after opensimulator has been proven
> to be a safe environment, which i will once again repeat, it currently is
> not!!!
>
> Neb
>
>
> On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 1:06 AM, Colin B. Withers <
> colin.with...@eumetsat.int> wrote:
>
>>  I fully understand that argument Stefan (although I do not agree with
>> it). What I do not understand is how a currency module can be considered
>> risky, but the entire asset server (holding everything that people have
>> bought with an external currency module) is not considered even more of a
>> risk.
>>
>>
>>
>> Rock
>>
>> *From:* opensim-dev-boun...@lists.berlios.de [mailto:
>> opensim-dev-boun...@lists.berlios.de] *On Behalf Of *Stefan Andersson
>> *Sent:* Wednesday, July 08, 2009 7:54 AM
>>
>> *To:* opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de
>> *Subject:* Re: [Opensim-dev] Currency
>>
>>
>>
>> Rock,
>>
>>
>>
>> An implementation of a functional monetary system has been declared as out
>> of scope for OpenSim. It is something that has to go into the custom
>> implementation/third party provider layer.
>>
>>
>>
>> There is a live and ongoing discussion as of where to draw the line for
>> what goes into the core, and what should be left to external module creators
>> and custom implementation.
>>
>>
>>
>> It is within scope of OpenSim to provide hooks so that such a module,
>> tailored for the specific use case, be created.
>>
>>
>>
>> As a project we need to draw a scope line somewhere, and often it’s a case
>> of weighting several variables against each other.
>>
>>
>>
>> In this case, it’s been a long standing stance that implementation of a
>> monetary system is outside of the scope of the OpenSim core distribution.
>>
>>
>>
>> We did provide the SampleMoneyModule, but the problem was that people was
>> using this unsafe and immature example code directly in live and production
>> environments. Though we could swear ourselves free from that with a  “suit
>> yourself, it was wholly at your own risk”, it’s not only a legal case, but
>> also a case of us not wanting to expose our users to unsafe and immature
>> code that could cause them direct economic damage. We generally don’t want
>> to take decisions for our users, but this one would be considered a
>> real-world risk policy decision.
>>
>>
>>
>> I believe that the very absence of a money implementation outside of core
>> would be an indication that it’s right not having one inside; if there is no
>> external module being maintained and used, it either means nobody see value
>> enough to work on it, or that any implementation is too use case specific
>> for there to be any value for the general public.
>>
>>
>>
>> At any rate, it is my opinion that the whole economy domain needs a lot
>> more work and reach a much higher level of maturity before anything could be
>> considered for inclusion into the core distribution.
>>
>>
>>
>> /Stefan
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* opensim-dev-boun...@lists.berlios.de [mailto:
>> opensim-dev-boun...@lists.berlios.de] *On Behalf Of *Colin B. Withers
>> *Sent:* den 7 juli 2009 15:27
>> *To:* opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de
>> *Subject:* Re: [Opensim-dev] Currency
>>
>>
>>
>> If ReactionGrid uses no currency, and has no plans to ever have it, and
>> does not wish to get involded in virtual commerce, using either core
>> solutions or e

Re: [Opensim-dev] Deprecate OpenSim.Grid.InventoryServer and OpenSim.Grid.AssetServer?

[Melanie]

Charles, I said documentation is on it's way. I would like to get 
people's opinions on moving forward with deprecating the old 
servers, not people's opinions on the obvious need for documentation.

Further, if the old servers are kept, they will have to be 
maintained indefinitely and so will the protocols, blocking any real 
progress. So, could you please explain your -1?

Regards,

Melanie

Charles Krinke wrote:
> -1. Lets not remove any existing OpenSim servers.
> 
> Lets *start* with some documentation so we know what is being proposed.
> 
> Charles 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From: Melanie 
> To: opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de
> Sent: Wednesday, July 8, 2009 7:28:37 AM
> Subject: Re: [Opensim-dev] Deprecate OpenSim.Grid.InventoryServer and 
> OpenSim.Grid.AssetServer?
> 
> Documentation is on it's way. Could we get the voting back on track 
> on the question of whether to deprecate/remove the old servers, 
> instead of voting on the obvious need for documentation?
> 
> Melanie
> 
> Charles Krinke wrote:
>> +1 also. We need some wiki documentation for BUST to describe how folks can 
>> configure and use it.
>> 
>> Charles
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> From: Justin Clark-Casey 
>> To: opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de
>> Sent: Wednesday, July 8, 2009 3:51:29 AM
>> Subject: Re: [Opensim-dev] Deprecate OpenSim.Grid.InventoryServer and 
>> OpenSim.Grid.AssetServer?
>> 
>> Cristina Videira Lopes wrote:
>>> What is BUST?
>>> Also, is there already documentation about the new server shell? We need 
>>> to document it before retiring the old servers. I'd do it, but I'm 
>>> completely out of context these days, so it won't happen [on my side] 
>>> for another couple of weeks.
>> 
>> +1.  One can't responsibly replace existing documented parts of the 
>> infrastructure until there is wiki documentation on 
>> the new stuff.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> ___
>> 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
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ___
> 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

Re: [Opensim-dev] Currency

[Nebadon Izumi]

Rock,

I do beleive your missing the point entirely, the reason we do not wish to
implement any money systems at this time, is exactly for that reason,
OpenSImulator is not a safe place to be slinging money around, the asset
server is not secure, nothing about opensimulator is secure, yet you people
are all arguing that other people take on the risk so that you can have an
economic system,  It is this exact argument you are making that has prompted
the development team to flat out say no to everyone, you can not expect
others to take on risk so you can make a living, if you want this
functionality so badly, you should A, develop the system yourself like we
said, or B hire a professional who understands security to evalute the risk
assessment of this software and do the legal research and you take on the
risk and provide the code to everyone if you all think it is so safe and ok
to do things that lawyers and security experts say we should not be doing.
You guys can all argue to you are blue in the face, it wont change the fact
that this is a monumentally horrible idea right now, we souldnt even be
discussing this as an option until well after opensimulator has been proven
to be a safe environment, which i will once again repeat, it currently is
not!!!

Neb

On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 1:06 AM, Colin B. Withers  wrote:

>  I fully understand that argument Stefan (although I do not agree with
> it). What I do not understand is how a currency module can be considered
> risky, but the entire asset server (holding everything that people have
> bought with an external currency module) is not considered even more of a
> risk.
>
>
>
> Rock
>
> *From:* opensim-dev-boun...@lists.berlios.de [mailto:
> opensim-dev-boun...@lists.berlios.de] *On Behalf Of *Stefan Andersson
> *Sent:* Wednesday, July 08, 2009 7:54 AM
>
> *To:* opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de
> *Subject:* Re: [Opensim-dev] Currency
>
>
>
> Rock,
>
>
>
> An implementation of a functional monetary system has been declared as out
> of scope for OpenSim. It is something that has to go into the custom
> implementation/third party provider layer.
>
>
>
> There is a live and ongoing discussion as of where to draw the line for
> what goes into the core, and what should be left to external module creators
> and custom implementation.
>
>
>
> It is within scope of OpenSim to provide hooks so that such a module,
> tailored for the specific use case, be created.
>
>
>
> As a project we need to draw a scope line somewhere, and often it’s a case
> of weighting several variables against each other.
>
>
>
> In this case, it’s been a long standing stance that implementation of a
> monetary system is outside of the scope of the OpenSim core distribution.
>
>
>
> We did provide the SampleMoneyModule, but the problem was that people was
> using this unsafe and immature example code directly in live and production
> environments. Though we could swear ourselves free from that with a  “suit
> yourself, it was wholly at your own risk”, it’s not only a legal case, but
> also a case of us not wanting to expose our users to unsafe and immature
> code that could cause them direct economic damage. We generally don’t want
> to take decisions for our users, but this one would be considered a
> real-world risk policy decision.
>
>
>
> I believe that the very absence of a money implementation outside of core
> would be an indication that it’s right not having one inside; if there is no
> external module being maintained and used, it either means nobody see value
> enough to work on it, or that any implementation is too use case specific
> for there to be any value for the general public.
>
>
>
> At any rate, it is my opinion that the whole economy domain needs a lot
> more work and reach a much higher level of maturity before anything could be
> considered for inclusion into the core distribution.
>
>
>
> /Stefan
>
>
>
> *From:* opensim-dev-boun...@lists.berlios.de [mailto:
> opensim-dev-boun...@lists.berlios.de] *On Behalf Of *Colin B. Withers
> *Sent:* den 7 juli 2009 15:27
> *To:* opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de
> *Subject:* Re: [Opensim-dev] Currency
>
>
>
> If ReactionGrid uses no currency, and has no plans to ever have it, and
> does not wish to get involded in virtual commerce, using either core
> solutions or external solutions, then indeed it is a 3D chatroom. 3D
> chatrooms are well suited to Educational purposes, and indeed my own Opensim
> grid has been used by a US college for educational purposes.
>
>
>
> However, for a virtual space to take on the mantle of a virtual world, then
> commerce is an essential element, and currency is essential to that.
>
>
>
> I think the argument that there is a risk in providing a currency module in
> core, from those who might complain "your code ate my money" is a specious
> argument. This charge could be levelled whenever opensim is used as a
> platform for a virtual world providing virtual real estate, for real world
> money (whether a  currency mod

Re: [Opensim-dev] Deprecate OpenSim.Grid.InventoryServer and OpenSim.Grid.AssetServer?

[Arthur Valadares]

if (documentation) return +1;

Every page you write on the wiki, god saves a fluffy bunny rabbit..

On Wed, 2009-07-08 at 06:47 -0700, Charles Krinke wrote:
> +1 also. We need some wiki documentation for BUST to describe how
> folks can configure and use it.
> 
> Charles
> 
> 
> 
> __
> From: Justin Clark-Casey 
> To: opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de
> Sent: Wednesday, July 8, 2009 3:51:29 AM
> Subject: Re: [Opensim-dev] Deprecate OpenSim.Grid.InventoryServer and
> OpenSim.Grid.AssetServer?
> 
> Cristina Videira Lopes wrote:
> > What is BUST?
> > Also, is there already documentation about the new server shell? We
> need 
> > to document it before retiring the old servers. I'd do it, but I'm 
> > completely out of context these days, so it won't happen [on my
> side] 
> > for another couple of weeks.
> 
> +1.  One can't responsibly replace existing documented parts of the
> infrastructure until there is wiki documentation on 
> the new stuff.
> 
> -- 
> 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
> 
> ___
> 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

Re: [Opensim-dev] Deprecate OpenSim.Grid.InventoryServer and OpenSim.Grid.AssetServer?

[Charles Krinke]

-1. Lets not remove any existing OpenSim servers.

Lets *start* with some documentation so we know what is being proposed.

Charles 





From: Melanie 
To: opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de
Sent: Wednesday, July 8, 2009 7:28:37 AM
Subject: Re: [Opensim-dev] Deprecate OpenSim.Grid.InventoryServer and 
OpenSim.Grid.AssetServer?

Documentation is on it's way. Could we get the voting back on track 
on the question of whether to deprecate/remove the old servers, 
instead of voting on the obvious need for documentation?

Melanie

Charles Krinke wrote:
> +1 also. We need some wiki documentation for BUST to describe how folks can 
> configure and use it.
> 
> Charles
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From: Justin Clark-Casey 
> To: opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de
> Sent: Wednesday, July 8, 2009 3:51:29 AM
> Subject: Re: [Opensim-dev] Deprecate OpenSim.Grid.InventoryServer and 
> OpenSim.Grid.AssetServer?
> 
> Cristina Videira Lopes wrote:
>> What is BUST?
>> Also, is there already documentation about the new server shell? We need 
>> to document it before retiring the old servers. I'd do it, but I'm 
>> completely out of context these days, so it won't happen [on my side] 
>> for another couple of weeks.
> 
> +1.  One can't responsibly replace existing documented parts of the 
> infrastructure until there is wiki documentation on 
> the new stuff.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ___
> 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
___
Opensim-dev mailing list
Opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de
https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev

Re: [Opensim-dev] Deprecate OpenSim.Grid.InventoryServer and OpenSim.Grid.AssetServer?

[Melanie]

Documentation is on it's way. Could we get the voting back on track 
on the question of whether to deprecate/remove the old servers, 
instead of voting on the obvious need for documentation?

Melanie

Charles Krinke wrote:
> +1 also. We need some wiki documentation for BUST to describe how folks can 
> configure and use it.
> 
> Charles
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From: Justin Clark-Casey 
> To: opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de
> Sent: Wednesday, July 8, 2009 3:51:29 AM
> Subject: Re: [Opensim-dev] Deprecate OpenSim.Grid.InventoryServer and 
> OpenSim.Grid.AssetServer?
> 
> Cristina Videira Lopes wrote:
>> What is BUST?
>> Also, is there already documentation about the new server shell? We need 
>> to document it before retiring the old servers. I'd do it, but I'm 
>> completely out of context these days, so it won't happen [on my side] 
>> for another couple of weeks.
> 
> +1.  One can't responsibly replace existing documented parts of the 
> infrastructure until there is wiki documentation on 
> the new stuff.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ___
> 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

Re: [Opensim-dev] Currency

[Stefan Andersson]

Aldon,

 

> Clearly, there are issues about people not understanding what it means to
> use alpha code, as we learned last April, but that is also not a reasonable
> excuse for not producing code. All code is alpha at some stage.


I can assure you that neither of us are looking for excuses not to produce code.

 
> As Jeroen noted, there are other aspects of how currency could be used such
> as a karma system, that are well worth exploring.


Definitively. I would suggest it would be based on some already-existing, 
web-based karma management cloud service implementation, so we don't need to 
download, compile and manage as much stuff.

 
> Perhaps the best would be for people committed to OpenSimCurrency to start a
> seperate project where they can collaborate on building a strong and robust
> currency system.
>

> So, for any of you that are really interested in OpenSimCurrency, what do
> you say to starting a parallel project that provides a third party currency
> framework that can run in OpenSim?


Go for it. Host it on the forge, create a wiki for it. Can't wait to see the 
first release.

 

Also, I believe there is still an Freenode IRC channel called #opensim-money.

 
/Stefan

 
___
Opensim-dev mailing list
Opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de
https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev

Re: [Opensim-dev] Deprecate OpenSim.Grid.InventoryServer and OpenSim.Grid.AssetServer?

[Charles Krinke]

+1 also. We need some wiki documentation for BUST to describe how folks can 
configure and use it.

Charles





From: Justin Clark-Casey 
To: opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de
Sent: Wednesday, July 8, 2009 3:51:29 AM
Subject: Re: [Opensim-dev] Deprecate OpenSim.Grid.InventoryServer and 
OpenSim.Grid.AssetServer?

Cristina Videira Lopes wrote:
> What is BUST?
> Also, is there already documentation about the new server shell? We need 
> to document it before retiring the old servers. I'd do it, but I'm 
> completely out of context these days, so it won't happen [on my side] 
> for another couple of weeks.

+1.  One can't responsibly replace existing documented parts of the 
infrastructure until there is wiki documentation on 
the new stuff.

-- 
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
___
Opensim-dev mailing list
Opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de
https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev

Re: [Opensim-dev] Currency

[Aldon Hynes]

Random thoughts:

I've always thought that the decision to not include currency in OpenSim was
an ill thought out decision for many reasons.  As people have noted, the
liability issue is a red herring.  I believe there are much greater
liability issues in the areas of intellectual property, copyright and so on
in the asset system than there would be in a currency system.  (I should
note that this comes, in part, after talking with retired U.S. Treasury
special agents).

Clearly, there are issues about people not understanding what it means to
use alpha code, as we learned last April, but that is also not a reasonable
excuse for not producing code.  All code is alpha at some stage.

As Jeroen noted, there are other aspects of how currency could be used such
as a karma system, that are well worth exploring.

All of that said, I have no expectation that the powers that be will ever
rethink their positions and so other alternatives should be pursued.
Perhaps the best would be for people committed to OpenSimCurrency to start a
seperate project where they can collaborate on building a strong and robust
currency system.

Currency doesn't need to be part of the core to be part of many worlds.
Instead, SampleMoney and OpenCurrency could be used as the starting point
for an OpenSimCurrency Project.  The project could be expanded to provide
much more information about the pros and cons of connecting a currency
system to external currency systems, and perhaps even mechanisms to make
such connections.

Likewise, code could be created to take currency and embed it in objects
using financial cryptography which could be used to transport currency
between worlds and for that matter between out of world systems.  (Side note
to skeptics:  I am well aware of the issues with many existing
implementations of financial cryptography.  I'm not saying this would be
easy.)

So, for any of you that are really interested in OpenSimCurrency, what do
you say to starting a parallel project that provides a third party currency
framework that can run in OpenSim?

Aldon

___
Opensim-dev mailing list
Opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de
https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev

Re: [Opensim-dev] Currency

[Len Brown]

This reminds me of a situation I encountered in Second Life last Autumn.  I
logged in on a Saturday morning and decided to sell a piece of land I no
longer needed.  I set the asking price at 10,000 Lindens.

Right about that time Linden Lad encountered a problem and began a rolling
restart of their servers.  Somehow the money system got "stuck" and when
someone bought my land it did not register with the Linden Lab servers.

The result was that, over the course of the next 20 minutes 7 people
"bought" my land.  When the dust settled I had one actual owner of my land
and 7 actual purchases.  As you might imagine, a lot of people were very
angry that I got their Lindens and they got nothing in return.

I communicated to them all and tried to explain the situation but most
called me a liar since "this never happened before.  I then contacted Linden
Lab tech support (after waiting nearly an hour on hold) and was told NOT to
refund the Lindens as they would resolve the "glitch."

After 24 hours and some very hostile people demanding their money back I
decided to go ahead and send each of them the 10,000 Lindens they gave me.
Almost a week later I logged in to find my account nearly 70,000 Lindens
overdrawn!

That was last Autumn and to this day Linden Lab never restored the Lindens I
lost.

So this is just one small example of why I am personally very happy to see
that the monetary system is not tied in with the core OpenSim code.  I'm not
at all against the money system, but definitely feel it's best kept as a
separate module for me to decide when and if I want to implement it on my
own servers now.

- Len
___
Opensim-dev mailing list
Opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de
https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev

Re: [Opensim-dev] Currency

[Toni Alatalo]

On Jul 8, 2009, at 11:10 AM, Jeroen van Veen wrote:

> I guess the economy stuff can be used as karma system as well. It 
> doesn't need
> to involve real money, to fit a purpose.

And it is simple to implement one, if you want one. Perhaps take the 
samplemoney module from an old svn rev, or the forge project that 
implemented money, and use it to run karma in your world. Make 
improvements as you see fit, and submit to forge if you want.

If core doesn't provide some hooks you need, I'm sure those can be 
added. But probably they are there already 'cause at least those two 
implementations (have) exist(ed), so core is probably already up to it. 
As much it is for anything.

I could visit a world that had karma, to see what is going on :)

> Jeroen

~Toni

> On Wednesday 08 July 2009 05:54:04 Stefan Andersson wrote:
>> Rock,
>>
>>
>>
>> An implementation of a functional monetary system has been declared 
>> as out
>> of scope for OpenSim. It is something that has to go into the custom
>> implementation/third party provider layer.
>>
>>
>>
>> There is a live and ongoing discussion as of where to draw the line 
>> for
>> what goes into the core, and what should be left to external module
>> creators and custom implementation.
>>
>>
>>
>> It is within scope of OpenSim to provide hooks so that such a module,
>> tailored for the specific use case, be created.
>>
>>
>>
>> As a project we need to draw a scope line somewhere, and often it's a 
>> case
>> of weighting several variables against each other.
>>
>>
>>
>> In this case, it's been a long standing stance that implementation of 
>> a
>> monetary system is outside of the scope of the OpenSim core 
>> distribution.
>>
>>
>>
>> We did provide the SampleMoneyModule, but the problem was that people 
>> was
>> using this unsafe and immature example code directly in live and 
>> production
>> environments. Though we could swear ourselves free from that with a  
>> "suit
>> yourself, it was wholly at your own risk", it's not only a legal 
>> case, but
>> also a case of us not wanting to expose our users to unsafe and 
>> immature
>> code that could cause them direct economic damage. We generally don't 
>> want
>> to take decisions for our users, but this one would be considered a
>> real-world risk policy decision.
>>
>>
>>
>> I believe that the very absence of a money implementation outside of 
>> core
>> would be an indication that it's right not having one inside; if 
>> there is
>> no external module being maintained and used, it either means nobody 
>> see
>> value enough to work on it, or that any implementation is too use case
>> specific for there to be any value for the general public.
>>
>>
>>
>> At any rate, it is my opinion that the whole economy domain needs a 
>> lot
>> more work and reach a much higher level of maturity before anything 
>> could
>> be considered for inclusion into the core distribution.
>>
>>
>>
>> /Stefan
>>
>>
>>
>> From: opensim-dev-boun...@lists.berlios.de
>> [mailto:opensim-dev-boun...@lists.berlios.de] On Behalf Of Colin B. 
>> Withers
>> Sent: den 7 juli 2009 15:27
>> To: opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de
>> Subject: Re: [Opensim-dev] Currency
>>
>>
>>
>> If ReactionGrid uses no currency, and has no plans to ever have it, 
>> and
>> does not wish to get involded in virtual commerce, using either core
>> solutions or external solutions, then indeed it is a 3D chatroom. 3D
>> chatrooms are well suited to Educational purposes, and indeed my own
>> Opensim grid has been used by a US college for educational purposes.
>>
>>
>>
>> However, for a virtual space to take on the mantle of a virtual 
>> world, then
>> commerce is an essential element, and currency is essential to that.
>>
>>
>>
>> I think the argument that there is a risk in providing a currency 
>> module in
>> core, from those who might complain "your code ate my money" is a 
>> specious
>> argument. This charge could be levelled whenever opensim is used as a
>> platform for a virtual world providing virtual real estate, for real 
>> world
>> money (whether a  currency module is implemented in core or external) 
>> as if
>> the grid goes down due to software bugs the grid owner stands to lose
>> rental income, or be liable for the claims of others.
>>
>>
>>
>> This can all be mitigated against (in territotories that allow it) by 
>> use
>> of a carefully worded TOS.
>>
>>
>>
>> Should the development of opensim be halted because someone might 
>> claim
>> "your software crashed my hard-drive, and I have lost US$$$" or "the 
>> bugs
>> in your software have contributed to me losing several tenants this 
>> week,
>> losing US$$$ in the process"?
>>
>>
>>
>> The software is used 'as is', with no claims as fitness for any 
>> particular
>> purpose, and this would apply to any core currency module.
>>
>>
>>
>> Rock
>>
>> PS Another grid, that the owner ploughed 1000s of dollars into, has
>> collapsed recently, due to lack of a viable currency solution.
>>
>>
>>
>> From: opensim-d

Re: [Opensim-dev] Deprecate OpenSim.Grid.InventoryServer and OpenSim.Grid.AssetServer?

[Justin Clark-Casey]

Cristina Videira Lopes wrote:
> What is BUST?
> Also, is there already documentation about the new server shell? We need 
> to document it before retiring the old servers. I'd do it, but I'm 
> completely out of context these days, so it won't happen [on my side] 
> for another couple of weeks.

+1.  One can't responsibly replace existing documented parts of the 
infrastructure until there is wiki documentation on 
the new stuff.

-- 
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

Re: [Opensim-dev] Deprecate OpenSim.Grid.InventoryServer and OpenSim.Grid.AssetServer?

[Cristina Videira Lopes]

What is BUST?
Also, is there already documentation about the new server shell? We need 
to document it before retiring the old servers. I'd do it, but I'm 
completely out of context these days, so it won't happen [on my side] 
for another couple of weeks.

Melanie wrote:
> At this time, yes. But changes are planned as we are moving to more 
> sane protocols.
> 
> Melanie
> 
> Frisby, Adam wrote:
>> The protocols remain the same, correct?
>>
>> Adam
>>
>>> -Original Message-
>>> From: opensim-dev-boun...@lists.berlios.de [mailto:opensim-dev-
>>> boun...@lists.berlios.de] On Behalf Of Melanie
>>> Sent: Tuesday, 7 July 2009 1:32 PM
>>> To: opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de
>>> Subject: [Opensim-dev] Deprecate OpenSim.Grid.InventoryServer and
>>> OpenSim.Grid.AssetServer?
>>>
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> we now have B.U.S.T., which runs the code that was originally in the
>>> asset and inventory servers. The asset server is new, from scratch,
>>> while the inventory server runs a port of the old code, courtesy of
>>> Diva, who translated it to in and out connectors.
>>>
>>> This means that the old standalone inventory and asset servers are
>>> now no longer needed. I propose to move the legacy servers out,
>>> either by removing them completely, or by converting them to a forge
>>> project.
>>>
>>> There is no need to have them, since B.U.S.T. can be configured to
>>> do just what they did, meaning, it can also run each service in a
>>> separate process, if desired.
>>>
>>> Melanie
>>> ___
>>> 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
>>
>>
> ___
> 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

Re: [Opensim-dev] Currency

[Stefan Andersson]

Rock,

 

If I understand your question correctly, the answer is that if you as a grid 
service provider have enabled being able to invest economically in assets thru 
the use of an external currency module, it is you as a responsible grid service 
provider that has to make sure the currency module and the asset server is 
secure enough for your business model.

 

This still holds: OpenSim is alpha software, provided without guarantee. It can 
be used in commercial settings provided you have the means to mitigate the 
risks involved. Most commercial grid operations have their own opensim 
development and quality assurance resources.

 

That said, there is nothing stopping noone from creating and distributing 
currency, points or other economic implementations. We have provided hooks and 
examples.


Best regards,
Stefan Andersson



 


From: colin.with...@eumetsat.int
To: opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de
Date: Wed, 8 Jul 2009 10:06:47 +0200
Subject: Re: [Opensim-dev] Currency





I fully understand that argument Stefan (although I do not agree with it). What 
I do not understand is how a currency module can be considered risky, but the 
entire asset server (holding everything that people have bought with an 
external currency module) is not considered even more of a risk.
 
Rock


From: opensim-dev-boun...@lists.berlios.de 
[mailto:opensim-dev-boun...@lists.berlios.de] On Behalf Of Stefan Andersson
Sent: Wednesday, July 08, 2009 7:54 AM
To: opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de
Subject: Re: [Opensim-dev] Currency
 
Rock,
 
An implementation of a functional monetary system has been declared as out of 
scope for OpenSim. It is something that has to go into the custom 
implementation/third party provider layer.
 
There is a live and ongoing discussion as of where to draw the line for what 
goes into the core, and what should be left to external module creators and 
custom implementation.
 
It is within scope of OpenSim to provide hooks so that such a module, tailored 
for the specific use case, be created.
 
As a project we need to draw a scope line somewhere, and often it’s a case of 
weighting several variables against each other.
 
In this case, it’s been a long standing stance that implementation of a 
monetary system is outside of the scope of the OpenSim core distribution.
 
We did provide the SampleMoneyModule, but the problem was that people was using 
this unsafe and immature example code directly in live and production 
environments. Though we could swear ourselves free from that with a  “suit 
yourself, it was wholly at your own risk”, it’s not only a legal case, but also 
a case of us not wanting to expose our users to unsafe and immature code that 
could cause them direct economic damage. We generally don’t want to take 
decisions for our users, but this one would be considered a real-world risk 
policy decision.
 
I believe that the very absence of a money implementation outside of core would 
be an indication that it’s right not having one inside; if there is no external 
module being maintained and used, it either means nobody see value enough to 
work on it, or that any implementation is too use case specific for there to be 
any value for the general public.
 
At any rate, it is my opinion that the whole economy domain needs a lot more 
work and reach a much higher level of maturity before anything could be 
considered for inclusion into the core distribution.
 
/Stefan
 



From: opensim-dev-boun...@lists.berlios.de 
[mailto:opensim-dev-boun...@lists.berlios.de] On Behalf Of Colin B. Withers
Sent: den 7 juli 2009 15:27
To: opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de
Subject: Re: [Opensim-dev] Currency
 
If ReactionGrid uses no currency, and has no plans to ever have it, and does 
not wish to get involded in virtual commerce, using either core solutions or 
external solutions, then indeed it is a 3D chatroom. 3D chatrooms are well 
suited to Educational purposes, and indeed my own Opensim grid has been used by 
a US college for educational purposes. 
 
However, for a virtual space to take on the mantle of a virtual world, then 
commerce is an essential element, and currency is essential to that.
 
I think the argument that there is a risk in providing a currency module in 
core, from those who might complain "your code ate my money" is a specious 
argument. This charge could be levelled whenever opensim is used as a platform 
for a virtual world providing virtual real estate, for real world money 
(whether a  currency module is implemented in core or external) as if the grid 
goes down due to software bugs the grid owner stands to lose rental income, or 
be liable for the claims of others.
 
This can all be mitigated against (in territotories that allow it) by use of a 
carefully worded TOS.
 
Should the development of opensim be halted because someone might claim "your 
software crashed my hard-drive, and I have lost US$$$" or "the bugs in your 
software have contributed to me losing several tenants this week, lo

Re: [Opensim-dev] Currency

[Colin B. Withers]

I fully understand that argument Stefan (although I do not agree with it). What 
I do not understand is how a currency module can be considered risky, but the 
entire asset server (holding everything that people have bought with an 
external currency module) is not considered even more of a risk.

Rock
From: opensim-dev-boun...@lists.berlios.de 
[mailto:opensim-dev-boun...@lists.berlios.de] On Behalf Of Stefan Andersson
Sent: Wednesday, July 08, 2009 7:54 AM
To: opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de
Subject: Re: [Opensim-dev] Currency

Rock,

An implementation of a functional monetary system has been declared as out of 
scope for OpenSim. It is something that has to go into the custom 
implementation/third party provider layer.

There is a live and ongoing discussion as of where to draw the line for what 
goes into the core, and what should be left to external module creators and 
custom implementation.

It is within scope of OpenSim to provide hooks so that such a module, tailored 
for the specific use case, be created.

As a project we need to draw a scope line somewhere, and often it’s a case of 
weighting several variables against each other.

In this case, it’s been a long standing stance that implementation of a 
monetary system is outside of the scope of the OpenSim core distribution.

We did provide the SampleMoneyModule, but the problem was that people was using 
this unsafe and immature example code directly in live and production 
environments. Though we could swear ourselves free from that with a  “suit 
yourself, it was wholly at your own risk”, it’s not only a legal case, but also 
a case of us not wanting to expose our users to unsafe and immature code that 
could cause them direct economic damage. We generally don’t want to take 
decisions for our users, but this one would be considered a real-world risk 
policy decision.

I believe that the very absence of a money implementation outside of core would 
be an indication that it’s right not having one inside; if there is no external 
module being maintained and used, it either means nobody see value enough to 
work on it, or that any implementation is too use case specific for there to be 
any value for the general public.

At any rate, it is my opinion that the whole economy domain needs a lot more 
work and reach a much higher level of maturity before anything could be 
considered for inclusion into the core distribution.

/Stefan

From: opensim-dev-boun...@lists.berlios.de 
[mailto:opensim-dev-boun...@lists.berlios.de] On Behalf Of Colin B. Withers
Sent: den 7 juli 2009 15:27
To: opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de
Subject: Re: [Opensim-dev] Currency

If ReactionGrid uses no currency, and has no plans to ever have it, and does 
not wish to get involded in virtual commerce, using either core solutions or 
external solutions, then indeed it is a 3D chatroom. 3D chatrooms are well 
suited to Educational purposes, and indeed my own Opensim grid has been used by 
a US college for educational purposes.

However, for a virtual space to take on the mantle of a virtual world, then 
commerce is an essential element, and currency is essential to that.

I think the argument that there is a risk in providing a currency module in 
core, from those who might complain "your code ate my money" is a specious 
argument. This charge could be levelled whenever opensim is used as a platform 
for a virtual world providing virtual real estate, for real world money 
(whether a  currency module is implemented in core or external) as if the grid 
goes down due to software bugs the grid owner stands to lose rental income, or 
be liable for the claims of others.

This can all be mitigated against (in territotories that allow it) by use of a 
carefully worded TOS.

Should the development of opensim be halted because someone might claim "your 
software crashed my hard-drive, and I have lost US$$$" or "the bugs in your 
software have contributed to me losing several tenants this week, losing US$$$ 
in the process"?

The software is used 'as is', with no claims as fitness for any particular 
purpose, and this would apply to any core currency module.

Rock
PS Another grid, that the owner ploughed 1000s of dollars into, has collapsed 
recently, due to lack of a viable currency solution.

From: opensim-dev-boun...@lists.berlios.de 
[mailto:opensim-dev-boun...@lists.berlios.de] On Behalf Of Chris Hart
Sent: Monday, July 06, 2009 3:50 PM
To: opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de
Subject: Re: [Opensim-dev] Currency

Couldn't disagree more - ReactionGrid has no inworld currency and no plans to 
ever have it. Encouraging creativity, sharing, and collaborative learning has 
proved more than worthwhile to us. And quite frankly, the legal and tax issues 
around running a currency system should require dedicated qualified experts to 
manage correctly. You can do a huge amount without play money inworld - and if 
you want to pay someone money for a product, there are many solutions out there 
that are properl

Re: [Opensim-dev] Deprecate OpenSim.Grid.InventoryServer and OpenSim.Grid.AssetServer?

[Melanie]

The CB version we have in trunk is another implementation of similar 
concepts. It has some hooks for some features, which were never 
implemented, that the new system doesn't have yet, but the modular 
system make them entirely possible.

At this point, the CB in trunk is stagnant. It's a stripped down 
version that is already incompatible with upstream CB and 
essentially unmaintained. I doubt anyone uses it and would think it 
could also be dropped or moved.

Melanie

Stefan Andersson wrote:
> +1 by all means.
> 
> At the same time, I invite discussion on the cable beach descendant - do you
> see that this one could be merged into the... bust?
> 
> Again, big thanks to you and Diva for pulling this off. It's a major step
> forward indeed!
> 
> /Stefan
> 
>> -Original Message-
>> From: opensim-dev-boun...@lists.berlios.de [mailto:opensim-dev-
>> boun...@lists.berlios.de] On Behalf Of Melanie
>> Sent: den 7 juli 2009 22:32
>> To: opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de
>> Subject: [Opensim-dev] Deprecate OpenSim.Grid.InventoryServer and
>> OpenSim.Grid.AssetServer?
>> 
>> Hi all,
>> 
>> we now have B.U.S.T., which runs the code that was originally in the
>> asset and inventory servers. The asset server is new, from scratch,
>> while the inventory server runs a port of the old code, courtesy of
>> Diva, who translated it to in and out connectors.
>> 
>> This means that the old standalone inventory and asset servers are
>> now no longer needed. I propose to move the legacy servers out,
>> either by removing them completely, or by converting them to a forge
>> project.
>> 
>> There is no need to have them, since B.U.S.T. can be configured to
>> do just what they did, meaning, it can also run each service in a
>> separate process, if desired.
>> 
>> Melanie
>> ___
>> 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
> 
> 
___
Opensim-dev mailing list
Opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de
https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev