And you're being argumentative just to do it. Look, OpenSim at least initially was all about the LL grid. Without a client to access the simulator all the shiny server bits aren't terribly useful. And there have been a number of starts at other clients. For the most part however people who connect to OpenSim do it with a LL or derived viewer.
If the LL protocol stuff ends up in a forge module (because the framework can handle that level of separation) I'd be perfectly ok with that. People will use OpenSim for a variety of projects from running production traffic (today very likely based on a LL or derived viewer) to futuristic exploration (like Hypergrid). That's a pretty wide set of use cases to support. I care more about the process than a specific product (other than that I can make my product using the framework and have some semblance of success at it). My argument FWIW wasn't about a specific protocol. It's about how it evolves successfully to support the widely varied use cases OpenSim is being applied to. Hence the change in subject line. Mike On Fri, 2009-04-17 at 16:29 +0000, Melanie wrote: > Hello, > > you're basing your argument on a flawed assumption. > > OpenSim's purpose is NOT to be a SL clone. It is to be expected that > OpenSim will evolve away from the LL model in significant ways, > possibly even before 1.0. > > If your desire is to duplicate the LL grid, you can likely still do > it, and in the future you may need additional modules, which may be > on forge. > > Hypergrid is certainly core, because Hypergrid is what the core team > sees as the future. SL compatibility is still a focus, but is > largely understood as a stepping stone into the next generation web. > > Therefore, you may well find a "walled garden" forge module in the > future. > > Melanie > > > Mike Dickson wrote: > > Justin, thanks for clarifying the process. And I certainly understand > > the interest in Hypergrid and the energy behind it. Charles your message > > was also helpful in highlighting to me what is at the center of my > > concern. I agree the development process is somewhat chaotic and things > > get hacked in based on interest. That's probably completely to be > > expected though it may not make for the best platform going forward. > > > > Using Hypergrid as an example,my preference would be to do it outside of > > core. So let me explain that. Something like Hypergrid is going to > > require a different usage model from the original core (different > > protocols for "teleporting", now the exploration around inventory, etc). > > Rather than have the changes to handle that get introduced into core I'd > > have preferred to see something like an RFC that documents what is being > > proposed, and what "interfaces" need to be changed in order to > > accommodate the new use cases. That RFC gets iterated and the > > interfaces evolved to make "hypergrid" possible as a pluggable module. > > Over time most likely the set of commonly used modules grows and you > > ultimately end up with a core framework and a "core" set of modules that > > define what the out of the box functionality of an installation is > > (standalone, hypergrid, what have you). > > > > The obvious problem with this approach is that it requires evolving the > > core framework which is not nearly as "sexy" as hacking in new features. > > I've done both approaches. Certainly a cool demo can go a long way to > > sell a concept and often the change the framework process takes enough > > time that prototypes don't happen. It's more work to maintain a branched > > copy of core while you evolve your prototype into a set of changed > > interfaces that support it. Personally I believe that more disciplined > > approach is the key to seeing OpenSim get to 1.0. And ultimately be a > > better platform for experimentation. > > > > So I like the concept of hypergrid. I think prototypes like that need > > to exist if only to prove that the community is healthy. But I also > > believe that how the "framework" is defined and evolves is equally if > > not more important (to me at least). > > > > Just my 2 cents. > > > > Mike > > > > On Fri, 2009-04-17 at 15:35 +0000, Justin Clark-Casey wrote: > >> But I do have to also point out that OpenSim development is largely driven > >> by the interest of the developers (since > >> there's no single company behind it). If there's a lot of development > >> interest behind Hypergrid then this is the > >> direction that's inevitably going to progress most. If people coming > >> along contributing code that enhances different > >> architectures, then development will also be driven in that direction. > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Opensim-dev mailing list > > [email protected] > > https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev > > > > -- Mike Dickson <[email protected]> BladeSystem infrastructure R&D _______________________________________________ Opensim-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev
