Maybe the right name for it is OpenSim.Region.ResourceServicesConnectors.dll
[email protected] wrote: > Stefan Andersson wrote: >> How about >> >> --- >> [RegionResourceServices] >> ;GridService = OpenSim.Region.Communications.Hypergrid.dll, HGGridServices >> ;GridService = OpenSim.Region.Communications.Local.dll, LocalBackEndServices >> >> GridService = OpenSim.Region.Communications.OGS1.dll, OGS1GridServices >> >> [GridService] >> grid_server_url = "http://192.168.1.101:9000"; >> grid_send_key = "null" >> grid_recv_key = "null" > > The problem with specifying dlls *in this particular case* is that these > things aren't entirely orthogonal/different. The Hypergrid dlls are a > mashup of the other two. Therefore from a source code perspective it > makes things a heck of a lot more complicated than they need to be if we > simply merge things and use conditionals on configuration variables. For > example, hyperlinks (part of grid services) is a really simple extension > to LocalGrid services. > > The issue of local vs remote services isn't entirely orthogonal either. > Some parts of OGS1 use Local services -- the well know pattern of > trying things locally first and if that doesn't work, proceed for a > remote service call (e.g. OGS1 grid services does that). > > I see why you want this, in abstract. If another service comes along, it > can simply be added as a component. Or if someone writes, say, a > completely different inventory service, its interface can be added as dll. > > But in this particular case, for the code we already have, I think that > having Local.dll, OGS1.dll and Hypergrid.dll is not working well, even > if the configuration process is the one you suggest. The code is mess; > things are _way_ more complicated than they need to be. > > So, maybe, what we can do is merging these two ideas. We'll have only > one dll (OpenSim.Region.ResourceServices.dll), but we'll specify things > in OpenSim.ini the way that you suggest, so that if anyone comes along > and wants to plug in a different inventory service, he can just specify > the other dll and an entry class name for it. > > What do you think? > > >> [Security] >> >> SessionAuthentication = {True|False} >> KeyAuthentication = {True|False} >> >> --- >> >> The constructor is being fed a config source, so the service can pick >> out whatever it needs. >> >> All the shipped grid services could move into one assembly, as we're >> explicitly specifying the implementing calss. >> >> I believe this approach would get us improved flexibility. >> >> /Stefan > _______________________________________________ > 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
