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: [email protected]> To: [email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> 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: [email protected]> > > To: [email protected]> > > 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 <[email protected]> wrote:> > > > Hi,> > > >> > > > On Fri, 30 Jan 2009 07:37:27 -0500> > > > Sean Dague <sd [email protected]> 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 +0000 (GMT)> > > > MW <[email protected]> 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> > > > [email protected]> > > > https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev> > > >> > > _______________________________________________> > > Opensim-dev mailing list> > > [email protected]> > > https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev> >> >> > _______________________________________________> > Opensim-dev mailing list> > [email protected]> > https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev> >> >> ____ ___________________________________________> Opensim-dev mailing list> [email protected]> https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > Opensim-dev mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev _______________________________________________ Opensim-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev
