Hurliman, John wrote: >> -----Original Message----- >> From: [email protected] [mailto:opensim-dev- >> [email protected]] On Behalf Of Justin Clark-Casey >> Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2009 9:02 AM >> To: [email protected] >> Subject: Re: [Opensim-dev] Cable Beach update >> >> Mike Mazur wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> I have read through the most recent Office Hour transcript[1] and Cable >>> Beach was brought up. (Thanks Nebadon!) I'm unable to attend the office >>> hours, so please allow me to contribute a little to the discussion here. >>> >>> At this stage, I don't expect Cable Beach to offer better >>> performance over the existing asset server. >>> >>> Cable Beach does offer authentication built-in, though. This allows you >>> to access your assets thorugh external (third-party) applications which >>> may be other grids, editors, websites offering items for sale, etc. >>> >>> I suggested testing Cable Beach on some regions on OSGrid to see how >>> it'll fare under real-world use. I believe Intel is currently using >>> Cable Beach on their internal grid as well as ScienceSim[2], but I >>> wanted to supplement that with some testing at OSGrid as well. Setting >>> this up sooner rather than later could help identify issues introduced >>> with needed changes, such as converting to Mono.Addins and using >>> OpenSim's HTTP server. >>> >>> I figured it's possible to run Cable Beach in parallel with the >>> current OSGrid asset server (same machine, different machine, up to >>> you), and point a few regions that get some traffic to use this >>> asset server. The asset server could use its own database (a copy of >>> the current assets >>> table?) or point at the current assets DB. >>> >>> Having said that, the end goal is to replace the existing asset server >>> with Cable Beach in OpenSim core, and end up with only one asset server. >>> >>> So as far as I understand, there are two issues with Cable Beach as- is: >>> >>> 1. ExtensionLoader >>> 2. HttpServer >>> >>> I will have a look[3] at using Mono.Addins instead of >>> ExtensionLoader in Cable Beach. We can re-evaluate this situation >>> later based on the results. >>> >>> Hopefully the upstream HttpServer can be updated as required so the >>> DLL can be updated in OpenSim. This way the asset server can use the >>> existing HTTP server. >>> >>> Any other comments or suggestions to move this forward? >> Just two more points from me for now >> >> 1) Can this be put into our existing server framework (e.g. front end >> console classes derive from >> OpenSim.Framework.Servers.BaseOpenSimServer? I know this is hardly >> the best console front-end in the world, but I would like to see us be >> as consistent as possible across all servers until something better >> comes along. >> > > Certainly. You'll lose the ability to run Cable Beach as a real service, but > there's no reason BaseOpenSimServer couldn't be used. >
Thanks. I think someone did say on the mailing list that they were running (or perhaps it was looking to run) the existing UGAIM code as services, but I really don't know too much about how this works under Windows. But even if this isn't true then I would vote for consistency over functionality (without a firm agreement/intention to change the user interface to all the other services). >> 2) I notice a heavy use of JSON in the client docs, which is referred >> to as the "Reference Asset Protocol". Does this mean that such >> communication cannot be carried out using XML? XML is what we use >> everywhere at the moment, and it would be strange to move one aspect of >> comms to JSON without any agreement to make everything JSON. >> > > The "Reference Asset Protocol" refers to a mockup of the new protocol. The > existing asset and inventory transactions have several assumptions baked in > that are no longer true. They assume the region is fully trusted and will > handle security (no longer true with open grids like OSGrid or with Hypergrid > enabled regions), and that identity and authorization can both be handled > with a globally shared key (no longer true with web services connecting to > asset/inventory servers or direct client access). > > The reference protocol is absolutely a mockup and is by no means a proposal > for a final protocol. The choice of JSON over XML was arbitrary, and is one > of several frontends that are enabled by default. The others are the OpenSim > grid XML formats. I refer to these formats as legacy in places because they > need to go away soon. XML is good, but .NET serialization is a bad way to > make a standardized protocol (try writing a perl script that talks to the > inventory server). I agree, and we're pretty much moving away from using .NET serialization for any comms now (as shown by Diva's RestComms initiaitive). Thanks for the clarifications, John. -- justincc Justin Clark-Casey http://justincc.wordpress.com _______________________________________________ Opensim-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev
