Or a slightly different approach would be to add a security level as a a param
of the RegisterInterface method.
So that a module could register multiple interface with different security
levels. Its then up to the application/loader which componets get access to
which interfaces (or in our implementation which registries those interfaces
would be added to)
Anyway these are just ideas at the moment. The base system we have agreed to
(unless anyone else objects) is the IApplicationPlugin being able to register
to the ApplicationRegistry and to Scenes as it choices. Then having a
ApplicationPlugin that is a loader of IService modules. So these ideas are just
about how that loader handles things.
--- On Thu, 26/2/09, MW <michaelwr...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
From: MW <michaelwr...@yahoo.co.uk>
Subject: Re: [Opensim-dev] Comms Manager
To: opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de
Date: Thursday, 26 February, 2009, 11:17 PM
On that subject I keep coming back to the idea that there should be two
register Interface methods.
And my lastest idea is about having the concept of Primary Registry and
Secondary Registry as a concept in the IServiceCore interface.
The primary registry will be the protected Application registry, that
only privileged components should have access to. And the secondary
Registry is lower security.
Then a IServiceModule can decide if it wants to register with the
secondary Registry at all. A module could also register different
interfaces to each Registry. So say a cut down interface to the
Secondary Registry.
In the context of a ServiceModule being loaded into a Grid server, it
won't make any difference as (currently) they won't have any secondary
Registries, so those methods will just be stubbs.
But in the context of it being loaded into the region server. The
loader will handle the automagic of adding all modules, that have
registered with the secondary Registry, to the Scenes.
So we would have two register methods like:
void RegisterPrimaryInterface<T>(T iface);
void RegisterSecondaryInterface<T>(T iface);
--- On Thu, 26/2/09, Melanie <mela...@t-data.com> wrote:
From: Melanie <mela...@t-data.com>
Subject: Re: [Opensim-dev] Comms Manager
To: michaelwr...@yahoo.co.uk, opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de
Date: Thursday, 26 February, 2009, 8:50 PM
Yes, Sounds good. It will, of course, expose _all_ service modules to all
Scenes. If that is wanted in the long run is another question.
But, +1
Melanie
MW wrote:
> Well I think the compromise we basically agreed on is that we go with
IApplicationPlugins being able to register to the ApplicationRegistry and also
(via OnRegionCreated events) to the scenes.
> And then for the service modules, we can have a loader that itself is a
IApplicationPlugin that loads the service
modules (IServiceModule) and does the
auto registering for them. This way at least this automagic is out of the core
opensimbase (etc).
> --- On Thu, 26/2/09, Melanie <mela...@t-data.com> wrote:
> From: Melanie <mela...@t-data.com>
> Subject: Re: [Opensim-dev] Comms Manager
> To: opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de
> Date: Thursday, 26 February, 2009, 8:37 PM
>
> Well, if it gets that evil, then we might as well stick with plan A. As
long as this "All region" registration is in that specific application
module, and not global.
> I believe modules written to load into region servers should also handle
this explicitly.
>
> Melanie
>
> Justin Clark-Casey wrote:
>> MW wrote:
>>> A couple of issues/questions are:
>>>
>>> How would a Region/ServiceModule say what interface it wanted to
register, it might implement a
couple but only want to register one,
> or
>>> it might want to register its class type.
>>
>> :( Yeah, you're right - for some reason I forgot that you have to
> explicitly name the interface when you make the
>> RegisterModuleInterface() call. e.g.
>>
>> RegisterModuleInterface<IHappyModuleMethods>(this);
>>
>> I don't believe this can be achieved via reflection.
>>
>> However, I think you could still indicate which interfaces should be
> exposed to the region by adding attributes to them.
>> For example, in Initialise() you could do something like
>>
>>
RegistryManager.RegisterModuleInterface<IHappyModuleMethods>(this);
>>
>> And annotate the interfaces with something like
>>
>> [ServiceInterface]
>> public interface IHappyModuleMethods { ...
}
>>
>> In a region server, the interface would be added to the region
registry.
> In a grid server, the interface would be added
>> to the grid registry.
>>
>> If one wanted a non-region 'application only' interface in the
> region server, then one could perhaps also add
>>
>> [ApplicationInterface]
>> public interface IEvilApplicationMethods { ... }
>>
>> with
>>
>>
>
RegistryManager.RegisterModuleInterface<IEvilApplicationMethods>(this);
>>
>> In a region service this could be added only to the application
registry
> and not the region registry. In a grid service
>> it would still be added to the single grid registry.
>>
>> This is getting messy though and I'm not sure how much it buys you
> over simply indicating the 'type' (service or
>> application) when you initially register it. Mostly this all becomes
a
> refinement of your earlier
>>
>> void RegisterInterfaceToAllRegistries<T>(T iface);
>>
>>>
>>> And I'm taking it we would still have the ApplicationPlugin
that
> could
>>> register with what regions it wanted, so would still need the
Scene.RegisterModule<>() interface for them.
>>>
>>>
>>> --- On *Thu, 26/2/09, Justin Clark-Casey
> /<jjusti...@googlemail.com>/*
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> From: Justin Clark-Casey <jjusti...@googlemail.com>
>>> Subject: Re: [Opensim-dev] Comms Manager
>>> To: opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de
>>> Date: Thursday, 26 February, 2009, 7:07 PM
>>>
>>> MW wrote:
>>>
> I'm not actually bothered about the interface per se.
> What I require
>>> is > to be able to dynamically load generic modules
that no where
> in that
>>> > module does it know about IScene/Scene.
>>> > > I actually see your approach as complex because
it demands
> they need to
>>> > know how to register to a scene themselves when these
types
> shouldn't
>>> > need to know. The types of modules I mean are ones where
they
> just want
>>> > to register with the Core/Application and be accessed
from
> anywhere in
>>> >
>>> the application.
>>> > > Of course this module type doesn't fit all
needs, but
> thats what
>>> I'm > saying its not right to try to find a single
solution
that
> fits all
>>> > needs and turns out to be more complex than some modules
> require. And we
>>> > shouldn't rule out such generic modules.
>>> > > Now we could still do meet the above requirement
with you
> system, but it
>>> > would mean doing some automagic in a ApplicationPlugin
(or
> whatever
>>> > interface they used) loader.
>>> > > As the loader would have to provide its own
IServiceCore
> implementation,
>>> > that it passed to the IServiceModules that it loaded,
then it
> would need
>>> > to as your examples show handle scene creation and
register
> the all the
>>> > IServiceModules with those.
>>> > > This it does get complex, where the simply
solution and
the
> one I favour
>>> > is to just have a sharedRegistry that scenes can access.
>>> The whole > automagic came from me trying to find a
compromise that met
> your ideas.
>>> > I really dislike it though, but we just need to find a
> compromise as we
>>> > both have slighly different ideas and requirements.
>>> > > Thats why I would like to hear from other
people.
>>>
>>> Okay, it seems to me that the chief problem now is that MW
would
> like to
>>> exposed service module methods to regions without having
to put any IScene methods in the module code,
> allowing it to be
>>> used for both the region server and grid servers.
>>>
>>> This is possible if all the service methods are exposed to the
>
region.
>>> However, Melanie doesn't like this because it will
expose some methods that regions should arguably not be able
> to get at
>>> (such as IInventoryService.CreateNewUserInventory()).
>>>
>>> I would tend to think that we shouldn't expose such
service
> methods to
>>> regions.
>>>
>>> Neither side likes automagic by the
>>> core code, but I think a little bit of it
>>> will help here. Instead of having methods such as
>>>
>>> void RegisterInterfaceToAllRegistries<T>(T iface);
>>>
>>> we instead annotate service modules with [RegionModule] and
region
> interfaces
>>> with [RegionInterface]. Grid modules which can also
provide region services are annotated in this way.
> When
the
>>> core code goes to load them, the [RegionInterface] tagged
interfaces are automatically registered
> with the
>>> region registry. This replaces RegisterModuleInterface().
>>>
>>> It also requires that IServiceModule and IRegionModule are
> collapsed together,
>>> by removing the IScene references in IRegionModule.
Instead, these are passed in via the OnNewScene()
> event talked
>>> about earlier.
>>>
>>> In this way, service/application modules that aren't
> interested in scenes
>>> don't need to do any extra work apart from tagging the
module/interfaces appropriately, avoiding the
>>> boilerplate of
>>> separately registering the interface to each region. The
regions still don't have access to
>
inter-service/non-region
>>> interfaces.
>>>
>>> This does require a separate service registry hidden from the
> Region/Scene so
>>> that services can communicate among themselves (e.g. the
user service needs to call the inventory
> service to create
>>> new user inventories). There would be 2 registries in
total.
>>>
>>> Please excuse me if I haven't fully grokked all the
previous
> posts on this
>>> thread.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
