I suggest we talk more about complementary and parallell scenarios and strategies, and less about either/or - this is a platform, and various implemetations will prioritize differently.
Best regards, Stefan Andersson Tribal Media AB > Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2009 20:02:38 +0100 > From: dirk.kra...@pixelpark.com > To: opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de > Subject: Re: [Opensim-dev] oddities with asset storage > > There could be business modell attached to it. > Lets say you sell only the 'right to use it for a given time' to the user, > then you would have only one set of assets with multiple inventory pointers > from your 2000 customers. Once you delete/disable it, no one can use it > anymore. Once you update it, all 2000 have a newer version of it. The other > model would be the 'I buy it so I get a real copy of it'. The asset will be > copied (in my scenario to my local inventory domain, so I 'really' own it). > If you delete yours, mine is still there. If you update it, I need to obtain > a newer copy. There could even be a concept that something is there only once > (maybe art); you create it, give it a away (for a good price) and you don't > have it anymore. The asset vanishes from your inventory domain. > > Regarding the SL compatibility - maybe it doesn't need to be broken. IIRC > isn't there this CAPS mechanism that already proxies assets? Couldn't there > be some kind of intelligence behind it that collects and distributes assets > from the different domains? > > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- > Von: opensim-dev-boun...@lists.berlios.de > [mailto:opensim-dev-boun...@lists.berlios.de] Im Auftrag von Melanie > Gesendet: Mittwoch, 18. Februar 2009 19:57 > An: opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de > Betreff: Re: [Opensim-dev] oddities with asset storage > > Making a copy is the greater evil. With implicitly shared assets, > only content creators create assets. With asset copying, each > sale/give creates assets. > Take SL: > > I make a clothing item. I have to make 18 uploads (creating 18 > assets) to finally use 2 of the uploaded textures. I have also > created 36 wearable assets through this. > > Then i put that item for sale. 2000 users buy it. > > With implicitly shared assets, assets consumed: 18 texture, 36 wearable. > > With asset copying, assets consumed: 4001 texture, 4003 wearable > > See, the point of diminishing returns for copying is very close. > > Melanie > > > John Ward wrote: > > Justin Clark-Casey wrote: > >> The problem is that you may have given that item to somebody else. > >> Giving an item does not make an asset copy, it just makes an > >> inventory item copy (both inventory items still point towards the > >> same asset). > >> > >> So you may delete your item, but we don't know if the asset > >> referenced by that item lives on in someone else's inventory (or in > >> an object inventory). So we can't delete the underlying asset. > > > > Why not make an asset copy when one makes an inventory copy? Then > > delete the asset when deleted from inventory. Is each user having their > > own copy of many things a bigger problem? I guess this doesn't address > > one having out of ban knowledge of an assets UUID and expecting it to be > > there. Also, I accept that I may be missing some fundamental knowledge > > of how things work. Please be gentle :-) > > > > John. > > _______________________________________________ > > 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
