[Opensim-dev] AssetBase and metadata
Hi, In Cable Beach all asset information is split over two datatypes: - the Metadata class[1] - a byte array containing the actual asset data In OpenSim we have the AssetBase class[2] which contains asset metadata and data together. I'd like to modify the AssetBase class in OpenSim so it's composed of one Metadata class. So instead of having: AssetBase ab = new AssetBase(); ab.Name = "some name"; ab.Description = "some description"; I would write: AssetBase ab = new AssetBase(); ab.Metadata.Name = "some name"; ab.Metadata.Description = "some description"; I would define the Metadata class in AssetBase.cs. The serialization and deserialization methods currently in the Metadata class may or may not be included; I see those methods belonging in the Utils class[3], perhaps. The Metadata class itself will immediately be used within the new asset server, and I can see it being useful elsewhere in the future. Should the Metadata class be renamed to AssetMetadata? Any other thoughts? Thanks, Mike [1] http://forge.opensimulator.org/gf/project/assetserver/scmsvn/?action=browse&path=%2Ftrunk%2FAssetServer%2FMetadata.cs&view=markup [2] http://opensimulator.org/cgi-bin/viewcvs.cgi/trunk/OpenSim/Framework/AssetBase.cs?view=markup [3] http://forge.opensimulator.org/gf/project/assetserver/scmsvn/?action=browse&path=%2Ftrunk%2FAssetServer%2FUtils.cs&view=markup ___ Opensim-dev mailing list Opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev
Re: [Opensim-dev] AssetBase and metadata
Mike Mazur wrote: > Hi, > > In Cable Beach all asset information is split over two datatypes: > > - the Metadata class[1] > - a byte array containing the actual asset data > > In OpenSim we have the AssetBase class[2] which contains asset metadata > and data together. I'd like to modify the AssetBase class in OpenSim > so it's composed of one Metadata class. > > So instead of having: > > AssetBase ab = new AssetBase(); > ab.Name = "some name"; > ab.Description = "some description"; > > I would write: > > AssetBase ab = new AssetBase(); > ab.Metadata.Name = "some name"; > ab.Metadata.Description = "some description"; > Just to clarify, you're anticipating changing the OpenSim.Framework.AssetBase class (instead of having a parallel class in the AssetServer code)? If so, sounds good to me. > I would define the Metadata class in AssetBase.cs. The serialization > and deserialization methods currently in the Metadata class may or may > not be included; I see those methods belonging in the Utils class[3], > perhaps. > > The Metadata class itself will immediately be used within the new asset > server, and I can see it being useful elsewhere in the future. > > Should the Metadata class be renamed to AssetMetadata? Any other > thoughts? From a readability perspective I would rather see it remain as just Metadata, since something like AssetBase myAsset = new AssetBase(); myAsset.AssetMetadata.Name = "Hel"; looks kind of redundant to me (though this may just be a taste issue). -- 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] AssetBase and metadata
Justin Clark-Casey wrote: > Mike Mazur wrote: >> Hi, >> >> In Cable Beach all asset information is split over two datatypes: >> >> - the Metadata class[1] >> - a byte array containing the actual asset data >> >> In OpenSim we have the AssetBase class[2] which contains asset metadata >> and data together. I'd like to modify the AssetBase class in OpenSim >> so it's composed of one Metadata class. >> >> So instead of having: >> >> AssetBase ab = new AssetBase(); >> ab.Name = "some name"; >> ab.Description = "some description"; >> >> I would write: >> >> AssetBase ab = new AssetBase(); >> ab.Metadata.Name = "some name"; >> ab.Metadata.Description = "some description"; >> > > Just to clarify, you're anticipating changing the OpenSim.Framework.AssetBase > class (instead of having a parallel class > in the AssetServer code)? If so, sounds good to me. > >> I would define the Metadata class in AssetBase.cs. The serialization >> and deserialization methods currently in the Metadata class may or may >> not be included; I see those methods belonging in the Utils class[3], >> perhaps. >> >> The Metadata class itself will immediately be used within the new asset >> server, and I can see it being useful elsewhere in the future. >> >> Should the Metadata class be renamed to AssetMetadata? Any other >> thoughts? > > From a readability perspective I would rather see it remain as just > Metadata, since something like > > AssetBase myAsset = new AssetBase(); > myAsset.AssetMetadata.Name = "Hel"; > > looks kind of redundant to me (though this may just be a taste issue). Agreed on the redundancy parts. The foo.fooName that is everywhere in the source just makes for a lot more typing. Let's not do more of that. :) -Sean -- Sean Dague / Neas Bade sda...@gmail.com http://dague.net 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] AssetBase and metadata
Hi, Thanks for the feedback... On Thu, 29 Jan 2009 15:15:38 + Justin Clark-Casey wrote: > Mike Mazur wrote: > > So instead of having: > > > > AssetBase ab = new AssetBase(); > > ab.Name = "some name"; > > ab.Description = "some description"; > > > > I would write: > > > > AssetBase ab = new AssetBase(); > > ab.Metadata.Name = "some name"; > > ab.Metadata.Description = "some description"; > > > > Just to clarify, you're anticipating changing the > OpenSim.Framework.AssetBase class (instead of having a parallel class > in the AssetServer code)? If so, sounds good to me. Yes, I'd like to modify OpenSim.Framework.AssetBase. > > Should the Metadata class be renamed to AssetMetadata? Any other > > thoughts? > > From a readability perspective I would rather see it remain as just > Metadata, since something like > > AssetBase myAsset = new AssetBase(); > myAsset.AssetMetadata.Name = "Hel"; > > looks kind of redundant to me (though this may just be a taste issue). Yeah, that seems redundant, although since the class lives in OpenSim.Framework, and not something more specific (like OpenSim.Framework.Assets, for example), the OpenSim.Framework.Metadata class would be pretty ambiguous; what is the Metadata for? For the time being I'll go ahead with OpenSim.Framework.Metadata. Thanks! Mike ___ Opensim-dev mailing list Opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev
Re: [Opensim-dev] AssetBase and metadata
Mike Mazur wrote: > Hi, > > Thanks for the feedback... > > On Thu, 29 Jan 2009 15:15:38 + > Justin Clark-Casey wrote: > >> Mike Mazur wrote: >>> So instead of having: >>> >>> AssetBase ab = new AssetBase(); >>> ab.Name = "some name"; >>> ab.Description = "some description"; >>> >>> I would write: >>> >>> AssetBase ab = new AssetBase(); >>> ab.Metadata.Name = "some name"; >>> ab.Metadata.Description = "some description"; >>> >> Just to clarify, you're anticipating changing the >> OpenSim.Framework.AssetBase class (instead of having a parallel class >> in the AssetServer code)? If so, sounds good to me. > > Yes, I'd like to modify OpenSim.Framework.AssetBase. > >>> Should the Metadata class be renamed to AssetMetadata? Any other >>> thoughts? >> From a readability perspective I would rather see it remain as just >> Metadata, since something like >> >> AssetBase myAsset = new AssetBase(); >> myAsset.AssetMetadata.Name = "Hel"; >> >> looks kind of redundant to me (though this may just be a taste issue). > > Yeah, that seems redundant, although since the class lives in > OpenSim.Framework, and not something more specific (like > OpenSim.Framework.Assets, for example), the OpenSim.Framework.Metadata > class would be pretty ambiguous; what is the Metadata for? > > For the time being I'll go ahead with OpenSim.Framework.Metadata. It's fine for the object to be called AssetMetaData, just don't make the property that. We don't have UserProfile.StringFirstname. The type is encoded already in the object, don't encode it also in the name. -Sean -- Sean Dague / Neas Bade sda...@gmail.com http://dague.net 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] AssetBase and metadata
I agree, I'd say call the class AssetMetaData, but just call the property (in AssetBase) MetaData. Sean Dague wrote: Mike Mazur wrote: > Hi, > > Thanks for the feedback... > > On Thu, 29 Jan 2009 15:15:38 + > Justin Clark-Casey wrote: > >> Mike Mazur wrote: >>> So instead of having: >>> >>> AssetBase ab = new AssetBase(); >>> ab.Name = "some name"; >>> ab.Description = "some description"; >>> >>> I would write: >>> >>> AssetBase ab = new AssetBase(); >>> ab.Metadata.Name = "some name"; >>> ab.Metadata.Description = "some description"; >>> >> Just to clarify, you're anticipating changing the >> OpenSim.Framework.AssetBase class (instead of having a parallel class >> in the AssetServer code)? If so, sounds good to me. > > Yes, I'd like to modify OpenSim.Framework.AssetBase. > >>> Should the Metadata class be renamed to AssetMetadata? Any other >>> thoughts? >> From a readability perspective I would rather see it remain as just >> Metadata, since something like >> >> AssetBase myAsset = new AssetBase(); >> myAsset.AssetMetadata.Name = "Hel"; >> >> looks kind of redundant to me (though this may just be a taste issue). > > Yeah, that seems redundant, although since the class lives in > OpenSim.Framework, and not something more specific (like > OpenSim.Framework.Assets, for example), the OpenSim.Framework.Metadata > class would be pretty ambiguous; what is the Metadata for? > > For the time being I'll go ahead with OpenSim.Framework.Metadata. It's fine for the object to be called AssetMetaData, just don't make the property that. We don't have UserProfile.StringFirstname. The type is encoded already in the object, don't encode it also in the name. -Sean -- Sean Dague / Neas Bade sda...@gmail.com http://dague.net ___ 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] AssetBase and metadata
Hi, On Fri, 30 Jan 2009 07:37:27 -0500 Sean Dague wrote: > It's fine for the object to be called AssetMetaData, just don't make > the property that. On Fri, 30 Jan 2009 14:51:12 + (GMT) MW wrote: > I agree, I'd say call the class AssetMetaData, but just call the > property (in AssetBase) MetaData. Makes perfect sense. Thanks for the feedback. Mike ___ Opensim-dev mailing list Opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev
Re: [Opensim-dev] AssetBase and metadata
Is there any reason that we don't request items from the asset server internally by the inventory UUID instead of the asset UUID? Requesting assets by inventory UUID would make it a LOT simpler to apply permissions at the trusted service level instead of at the simulator level. Best Regards Teravus On 2/1/09, Mike Mazur wrote: > Hi, > > On Fri, 30 Jan 2009 07:37:27 -0500 > Sean Dague wrote: > > > It's fine for the object to be called AssetMetaData, just don't make > > the property that. > > On Fri, 30 Jan 2009 14:51:12 + (GMT) > MW wrote: > > > I agree, I'd say call the class AssetMetaData, but just call the > > property (in AssetBase) MetaData. > > Makes perfect sense. Thanks for the feedback. > > Mike > ___ > 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] AssetBase and metadata
Hrrm, do remember however that it still isn't 'secure' since the messages can be forged easily enough. It might be worth considering a proposal I fielded about 2 years back on this list for a semi-encrypted asset shell. It's pretty simple - we encrypt all assets on upload, and we can then store the decoding key inside the inventory item. That way assets can be proxied for scaling, without increasing the risk profile. (as long as no-one starts copying the dec. keys) Adam > -Original Message- > From: opensim-dev-boun...@lists.berlios.de [mailto:opensim-dev- > boun...@lists.berlios.de] On Behalf Of Teravus Ovares > Sent: Sunday, 1 February 2009 8:59 PM > To: opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de > Subject: Re: [Opensim-dev] AssetBase and metadata > > Is there any reason that we don't request items from the asset server > internally by the inventory UUID instead of the asset UUID? > Requesting assets by inventory UUID would make it a LOT simpler to > apply permissions at the trusted service level instead of at the > simulator level. > > Best Regards > > Teravus > > On 2/1/09, Mike Mazur wrote: > > Hi, > > > > On Fri, 30 Jan 2009 07:37:27 -0500 > > Sean Dague wrote: > > > > > It's fine for the object to be called AssetMetaData, just don't > make > > > the property that. > > > > On Fri, 30 Jan 2009 14:51:12 + (GMT) > > MW wrote: > > > > > I agree, I'd say call the class AssetMetaData, but just call the > > > property (in AssetBase) MetaData. > > > > Makes perfect sense. Thanks for the feedback. > > > > Mike > > ___ > > 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] AssetBase and metadata
True, I'm not really going for security here, mostly going for 'possible'. As we edge closer and closer to a metaverse 'standard', the biggest thing keeping us from wide acceptance is our reliance on this idea of 100% trust with the region using it. We could use the RegionSecret for more 'security' as well. Still not 100% secure, but definately 'more'. We're moving much faster then other potential standards, granted.. however if it's something that nobody will use in the future, it's worthless. Some critics have said that in reference to OGP, but, I think that applies here as well for hypergridding. Another thing that would be useful, is 'remote grid region' permissions on the user account which would prevent remote regions from changing specific user settings (but remote account permissions would be a thread hijack..so I'll save that for another e-mail ) Best Regards Teravus On 2/2/09, Frisby, Adam wrote: > Hrrm, do remember however that it still isn't 'secure' since the messages can > be forged easily enough. > > It might be worth considering a proposal I fielded about 2 years back on this > list for a semi-encrypted asset shell. > > It's pretty simple - we encrypt all assets on upload, and we can then store > the decoding key inside the inventory item. That way assets can be proxied > for scaling, without increasing the risk profile. (as long as no-one starts > copying the dec. keys) > > Adam > > > -Original Message- > > From: opensim-dev-boun...@lists.berlios.de [mailto:opensim-dev- > > boun...@lists.berlios.de] On Behalf Of Teravus Ovares > > Sent: Sunday, 1 February 2009 8:59 PM > > To: opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de > > Subject: Re: [Opensim-dev] AssetBase and metadata > > > > Is there any reason that we don't request items from the asset server > > internally by the inventory UUID instead of the asset UUID? > > Requesting assets by inventory UUID would make it a LOT simpler to > > apply permissions at the trusted service level instead of at the > > simulator level. > > > > Best Regards > > > > Teravus > > > > On 2/1/09, Mike Mazur wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > > > On Fri, 30 Jan 2009 07:37:27 -0500 > > > Sean Dague wrote: > > > > > > > It's fine for the object to be called AssetMetaData, just don't > > make > > > > the property that. > > > > > > On Fri, 30 Jan 2009 14:51:12 + (GMT) > > > MW wrote: > > > > > > > I agree, I'd say call the class AssetMetaData, but just call the > > > > property (in AssetBase) MetaData. > > > > > > Makes perfect sense. Thanks for the feedback. > > > > > > Mike > > > ___ > > > 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] AssetBase and metadata
Are we sure all assets have inventory items associated with them? I can think of scripted objects that set textureIds programatically. (Melanie pointed that out to me) You can also have the case where you upload a texture (yes, it's in inventory) apply it to a shirt, then delete the original inventory item (the asset is still referenced from within the shirt asset, but is in no inventory) So I guess I don't understand what specific case you're referring to?Best regards,Stefan AnderssonTribal Media AB> Date: Sun, 1 Feb 2009 23:58:55 -0500> From: tera...@gmail.com> To: opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de> Subject: Re: [Opensim-dev] AssetBase and metadata> > Is there any reason that we don't request items from the asset server> internally by the inventory UUID instead of the asset UUID?> Requesting assets by inventory UUID would make it a LOT simpler to> apply permissions at the trusted service level instead of at the> simulator level.> > Best Regards> > Teravus> > On 2/1/09, Mike Mazur wrote:> > Hi,> >> > On Fri, 30 Jan 2009 07:37:27 -0500> > Sean Dague wrote:> >> > > It's fine for the object to be called AssetMetaData, just don't make> > > the property that.> >> > On Fri, 30 Jan 2009 14:51:12 + (GMT)> > MW wrote:> >> > > I agree, I'd say call the class AssetMetaData, but just call the> > > property (in AssetBase) MetaData.> >> > Makes perfect sense. Thanks for the feedback.> >> > Mike> > ___> > 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] AssetBase and metadata
>-Original Message- >From: opensim-dev-boun...@lists.berlios.de [mailto:opensim-dev- >boun...@lists.berlios.de] On Behalf Of Sean Dague >Sent: Monday, February 02, 2009 5:47 AM >To: opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de >Subject: Re: [Opensim-dev] AssetBase and metadata > >Teravus Ovares wrote: >> Is there any reason that we don't request items from the asset server >> internally by the inventory UUID instead of the asset UUID? >> Requesting assets by inventory UUID would make it a LOT simpler to >> apply permissions at the trusted service level instead of at the >> simulator level. > >To do that sanely, we'd have to merge the inventory and asset servers, >which honestly, wouldn't be such a bad idea. They have a hard time >living on their own anyway. > >-Sean > >-- >Sean Dague / Neas Bade >sda...@gmail.com >http://dague.net > That's exactly the approach in the Cable Beach asset/inventory server. As Teravus pointed out, assets and inventory have very different characteristics when it comes to storage and caching (inventory is almost identical to metadata). The server* has different backends/frontends for inventory, but shares authentication and authorization modules between inventory and assets. * In the current prototype implementation of Cable Beach asset/inventory, a single process is used. There are a nearly infinite number of techniques to break services apart, put them together, run different pieces on different machines, etc. The implementation details of what code is executing on what machine is not as important at this stage as defining the interfaces, and asserting that there is or is not a tight coupling between assets and inventory. If inventory defines the many to one mapping that allows multiple people to own the same asset with different permissions, I think a distributed grid must tightly couple these two concepts. John ___ Opensim-dev mailing list Opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev
Re: [Opensim-dev] AssetBase and metadata
Hm, thinking a bit more about it, I guess you have a very good point there; of course, you could let there be an 'virtual' inventory item (with the assetId as the inventoryId) that translates to the asset itself - and that would have some special way of determining permissions. That said, I'd much rather do something like separating out the 'permissions' bit in inventory and have that mean 'asset permissions for the trust domain' - you can still operate on the permissions in the same manner, and the net result will be the same, I guess. In other words; instead of having restricted inventory and full access assets, I'd rather say you had full access inventory and restricted assets, if that is any the least clearer? If you strip out permissions and type from inventory, the only thing left is name, owner and some data - and the inventory has most oftenly a pretty straightforward perms set (only let owner see and change on trusted regions) while assets parms can vary wildly with application. Best regards,Stefan AnderssonTribal Media AB> Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2009 08:24:52 -0500> From: tera...@gmail.com> To: opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de> Subject: Re: [Opensim-dev] AssetBase and metadata> > To the 'all assets have inventory items associated with them', no,> they don't, however, there's no harm in requesting the inventory item> where possible. It would limit the UUIDs that systems would have> access to as a reference, as well. I'm sure that there will be some> methods that must use Asset ID. Mostly, images. I suppose object> inventory might use Asset ID also, but probably does not have to until> they're requested by the client for editing.> > To the 'So I guess I don't understand what specific case you're> referring to?', See last Tuesday's Zero meeting for several references> to the pitfalls of Hypergrid (and it's not just Zero saying things to> criticize it. It's our users as well. That was a widely positive> meeting towards Hypergrid to the detriment of LLOGP. Mingled within> that, the way we handle property was the main criticism.> > Reference: http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/User:Zero_Linden/Office_Hours/2009_Jan_27> > I was saying that currently, we're doing nothing at all to limit> trust. If we maintain this approach, it will be a big factor in> other, non-currently-codified, standards being adopted and It'll> likely be impossible to fully implement other 'permissioned' standards> without some way to check the permissions first (such as OGP).> Currently, directly requesting Assets precludes this option. Not all> virtual worlds will have 'Property', but the ones that do will suffer.> Comparing to a web server, think .htaccess.> > Best Regards> > Teravus> > On 2/2/09, Stefan Andersson wrote:> > Are we sure all assets have inventory items associated with them?> >> > I can think of scripted objects that set textureIds programatically.> > (Melanie pointed that out to me)> >> > You can also have the case where you upload a texture (yes, it's in> > inventory) apply it to a shirt, then delete the original inventory item (the> > asset is still referenced from within the shirt asset, but is in no> > inventory)> >> > So I guess I don't understand what specific case you're referring to?> >> > Best regards,> > Stefan Andersson> > Tribal Media AB> >> >> > > Date: Sun, 1 Feb 2009 23:58:55 -0500> > > From: tera...@gmail.com> > > To: opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de> > > Subject: Re: [Opensim-dev] AssetBase and metadata> > >> > > Is there any reason that we don't request items from the asset server> > > internally by the inventory UUID instead of the asset UUID?> > > Requesting assets by inventory UUID would make it a LOT simpler to> > > apply permissions at the trusted service level instead of at the> > > simulator level.> > >> > > Best Regards> > >> > > Teravus> > >> > > On 2/1/09, Mike Mazur wrote:> > > > Hi,> > > >> > > > On Fri, 30 Jan 2009 07:37:27 -0500> > > > Sean Dague wrote:> > > >> > > > > It's fine for the object to be called AssetMetaData, just don't make> > > > > the property that.> > > >> > > > On Fri, 30 Jan 2009 14:51:12 + (GMT)> > > > MW wrote:> > > >> > > > > I agree, I'd say call the class AssetMetaData, but just call
Re: [Opensim-dev] AssetBase and metadata
I see the inventory server and the asset server as important to be separate, especially for caching purposes, however, I could see the use for the asset server to have a 'request by inventory id' method with the region server's uuid, region server's credentials(Region Secret?), and the agents uuid by proxy. -T On 2/2/09, Sean Dague wrote: > Teravus Ovares wrote: > > Is there any reason that we don't request items from the asset server > > internally by the inventory UUID instead of the asset UUID? > > Requesting assets by inventory UUID would make it a LOT simpler to > > apply permissions at the trusted service level instead of at the > > simulator level. > > To do that sanely, we'd have to merge the inventory and asset servers, > which honestly, wouldn't be such a bad idea. They have a hard time > living on their own anyway. > >-Sean > > -- > Sean Dague / Neas Bade > sda...@gmail.com > http://dague.net > > > > ___ > 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] AssetBase and metadata
Teravus Ovares wrote: > To the 'So I guess I don't understand what specific case you're > referring to?', See last Tuesday's Zero meeting for several references > to the pitfalls of Hypergrid (and it's not just Zero saying things to > criticize it. It's our users as well. That was a widely positive > meeting towards Hypergrid to the detriment of LLOGP. Mingled within > that, the way we handle property was the main criticism. > > Reference: > http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/User:Zero_Linden/Office_Hours/2009_Jan_27 > Darn, I missed that meeting! :-) okokok, trust and security is next. As a first step, I'm going to implement the suitcase idea. Any comments? http://opensimulator.org/wiki/Hypergrid_Inventory_Access Crista ___ Opensim-dev mailing list Opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev
Re: [Opensim-dev] AssetBase and metadata
Since assets are implicitly shared, I see no way to couple permissions to assets without making copies of assets. In that case, assets would be linked 1-to-1 and mutable, rather than implicitly shared and immutable. Melanie Stefan Andersson wrote: > Hm, thinking a bit more about it, I guess you have a very good point there; > > of course, you could let there be an 'virtual' inventory item (with the > assetId as the inventoryId) that translates to the asset itself - and that > would have some special way of determining permissions. > > That said, I'd much rather do something like separating out the 'permissions' > bit in inventory and have that mean 'asset permissions for the trust domain' > - you can still operate on the permissions in the same manner, and the net > result will be the same, I guess. > > In other words; instead of having restricted inventory and full access > assets, I'd rather say you had full access inventory and restricted assets, > if that is any the least clearer? > > If you strip out permissions and type from inventory, the only thing left is > name, owner and some data - and the inventory has most oftenly a pretty > straightforward perms set (only let owner see and change on trusted regions) > while assets parms can vary wildly with application. > Best regards,Stefan AnderssonTribal Media AB> Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2009 08:24:52 > -0500> From: tera...@gmail.com> To: opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de> Subject: > Re: [Opensim-dev] AssetBase and metadata> > To the 'all assets have inventory > items associated with them', no,> they don't, however, there's no harm in > requesting the inventory item> where possible. It would limit the UUIDs that > systems would have> access to as a reference, as well. I'm sure that there > will be some> methods that must use Asset ID. Mostly, images. I suppose > object> inventory might use Asset ID also, but probably does not have to > until> they're requested by the client for editing.> > To the 'So I guess I > don't understand what specific case you're> referring to?', See last > Tuesday's Zero meeting for several references> to the pitfalls of Hypergrid > (and it's not just Zero saying things to> criticize it. It's our users as > well. That was a widely positive> meeting towards Hypergrid to the detriment > of LLOGP. Mingl ed within> that, the way we handle property was the main criticism.> > Reference: http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/User:Zero_Linden/Office_Hours/2009_Jan_27> > I was saying that currently, we're doing nothing at all to limit> trust. If we maintain this approach, it will be a big factor in> other, non-currently-codified, standards being adopted and It'll> likely be impossible to fully implement other 'permissioned' standards> without some way to check the permissions first (such as OGP).> Currently, directly requesting Assets precludes this option. Not all> virtual worlds will have 'Property', but the ones that do will suffer.> Comparing to a web server, think .htaccess.> > Best Regards> > Teravus> > On 2/2/09, Stefan Andersson wrote:> > Are we sure all assets have inventory items associated with them?> >> > I can think of scripted objects that set textureIds programatically.> > (Melanie pointed that out to me)> >> > You can also have the case where you upload a texture (yes, it's in> > inventory) apply it to a shirt, then delete the original inventory item (the> > asset is still referenced from within the shirt asset, but is in no> > inventory)> >> > So I guess I don't understand what specific case you're referring to?> >> > Best regards,> > Stefan Andersson> > Tribal Media AB> >> >> > > Date: Sun, 1 Feb 2009 23:58:55 -0500> > > From: tera...@gmail.com> > > To: opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de> > > Subject: Re: [Opensim-dev] AssetBase and metadata> > >> > > Is there any reason that we don't request items from the asset server> > > internally by the inventory UUID instead of the asset UUID?> > > Requesting assets by inventory UUID would make it a LOT simpler to> > > apply permissions at the trusted service level instead of at the> > > simulator level.> > >> > > Best Regards> > >> > > Teravus> > >> > > On 2/1/09, Mike Mazur wrote:> > > > Hi,> > > >> > > > On Fri, 30 Jan 2009 07:37:27 -0500> > > > Sean Dague wrote:> > > >> > &
Re: [Opensim-dev] AssetBase and metadata
Hi Diva, ReX actually used that to allow "sim local" inventory : When you enter to a sim that got a local inventory available, it's added to your inventory folder, then removed as soon as you leave the sim. The structure is just another inventory branch called "World Inventory" with all the usual sub-branch. the main issue is you need to close/open your inventory to refresh it. Sacha On Mon, Feb 2, 2009 at 3:09 PM, Cristina Videira Lopes wrote: > Teravus Ovares wrote: > > To the 'So I guess I don't understand what specific case you're > > referring to?', See last Tuesday's Zero meeting for several references > > to the pitfalls of Hypergrid (and it's not just Zero saying things to > > criticize it. It's our users as well. That was a widely positive > > meeting towards Hypergrid to the detriment of LLOGP. Mingled within > > that, the way we handle property was the main criticism. > > > > Reference: > http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/User:Zero_Linden/Office_Hours/2009_Jan_27 > > > > Darn, I missed that meeting! :-) > > okokok, trust and security is next. > > As a first step, I'm going to implement the suitcase idea. Any comments? > http://opensimulator.org/wiki/Hypergrid_Inventory_Access > > Crista > > > > ___ > 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] AssetBase and metadata
To the 'all assets have inventory items associated with them', no, they don't, however, there's no harm in requesting the inventory item where possible.It would limit the UUIDs that systems would have access to as a reference, as well. I'm sure that there will be some methods that must use Asset ID. Mostly, images. I suppose object inventory might use Asset ID also, but probably does not have to until they're requested by the client for editing. To the 'So I guess I don't understand what specific case you're referring to?', See last Tuesday's Zero meeting for several references to the pitfalls of Hypergrid (and it's not just Zero saying things to criticize it. It's our users as well. That was a widely positive meeting towards Hypergrid to the detriment of LLOGP. Mingled within that, the way we handle property was the main criticism. Reference: http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/User:Zero_Linden/Office_Hours/2009_Jan_27 I was saying that currently, we're doing nothing at all to limit trust. If we maintain this approach, it will be a big factor in other, non-currently-codified, standards being adopted and It'll likely be impossible to fully implement other 'permissioned' standards without some way to check the permissions first (such as OGP). Currently, directly requesting Assets precludes this option. Not all virtual worlds will have 'Property', but the ones that do will suffer. Comparing to a web server, think .htaccess. Best Regards Teravus On 2/2/09, Stefan Andersson wrote: > Are we sure all assets have inventory items associated with them? > > I can think of scripted objects that set textureIds programatically. > (Melanie pointed that out to me) > > You can also have the case where you upload a texture (yes, it's in > inventory) apply it to a shirt, then delete the original inventory item (the > asset is still referenced from within the shirt asset, but is in no > inventory) > > So I guess I don't understand what specific case you're referring to? > > Best regards, > Stefan Andersson > Tribal Media AB > > > > Date: Sun, 1 Feb 2009 23:58:55 -0500 > > From: tera...@gmail.com > > To: opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de > > Subject: Re: [Opensim-dev] AssetBase and metadata > > > > Is there any reason that we don't request items from the asset server > > internally by the inventory UUID instead of the asset UUID? > > Requesting assets by inventory UUID would make it a LOT simpler to > > apply permissions at the trusted service level instead of at the > > simulator level. > > > > Best Regards > > > > Teravus > > > > On 2/1/09, Mike Mazur wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > > > On Fri, 30 Jan 2009 07:37:27 -0500 > > > Sean Dague wrote: > > > > > > > It's fine for the object to be called AssetMetaData, just don't make > > > > the property that. > > > > > > On Fri, 30 Jan 2009 14:51:12 + (GMT) > > > MW wrote: > > > > > > > I agree, I'd say call the class AssetMetaData, but just call the > > > > property (in AssetBase) MetaData. > > > > > > Makes perfect sense. Thanks for the feedback. > > > > > > Mike > > > ___ > > > 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] AssetBase and metadata
Teravus Ovares wrote: > Is there any reason that we don't request items from the asset server > internally by the inventory UUID instead of the asset UUID? > Requesting assets by inventory UUID would make it a LOT simpler to > apply permissions at the trusted service level instead of at the > simulator level. To do that sanely, we'd have to merge the inventory and asset servers, which honestly, wouldn't be such a bad idea. They have a hard time living on their own anyway. -Sean -- Sean Dague / Neas Bade sda...@gmail.com http://dague.net signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Opensim-dev mailing list Opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev
