I would hope it to be quicker, but the summarization and separation you did down there is a good one.
Melanie Stefan Andersson wrote: > This discussion went west pretty fast it seems. > > > > To try to get things on track; this is what I've heard said, and proposed, > in roughly this proposed order: > > > > 1) The BUST architecture might or might not change name. *This is a > separate item for discussion*. > > 2) The BUST architecture should be documented. This documentation is > allegedly on the way, but should be seen as a work in progress, like always. > > 3) After discussing it thru, reviewing documentation, proofing and > accepting BUST, there will be a round of voting on a proposal to retire the > old exes from the core distro. Everything will ideally work the same, just > that the new exes are configured differently, and allows for way better > modularization. > > 4) The Cable Beach offspring AssetInventoryServer might or might not > move out of core. *This is a separate item for discussion*. > > 5) After retiring the old exes, we can start documenting and peer > reviewing ideas for how a new set of protocols (OGS2) could work. *This is a > separate item for discussion*. > > 6) Whether this new protocol should be developed in or outside of trunk > is part of that separate discussion. > > 7) BUST will allow OGS1 and OGS2 to exist side by side. > > 8) OGS1 might or might not be retired. *This is a separate item for > discussion* > > > > I think the vote to retire the exes came somewhat prematurely, jilting > people. Let's keep these tracks well separated and move along in an orderly > fashion. > > > > Just to put things in perspective, I would estimate bullets 5-8 probably to > be during 2010. Point 8 probably more around early 2011. > > > > /Stefan > > > > From: [email protected] > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of MW > Sent: den 9 juli 2009 02:43 > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [Opensim-dev] Deprecate OpenSim.Grid.InventoryServer and > OpenSim.Grid.AssetServer? > > > > > Where are all these remarks of great acclaim? This is the first I've heard > about a new protocol being designed without any plan at all. > > I'm all for a new protocol but there needs to be a design and peer review. > Please stop adding any more work on a new protocol to the trunk until that > process can take place. As my vote is -1 (and consider it a veto vote) on > just writing it from a plan in your head when no one else knows what that > plan is. > > --- On Wed, 8/7/09, Melanie <[email protected]> wrote: > > > From: Melanie <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [Opensim-dev] Deprecate OpenSim.Grid.InventoryServer and > OpenSim.Grid.AssetServer? > To: [email protected] > Date: Wednesday, 8 July, 2009, 11:42 PM > > It doesn't need to be segregated. This can be done in trunk > perfectly well. We have had bad experiences with branches and I > believe there is a general aversion to them now. > > There is no need to push this outside of the core scope, especially > since it's already well underway. This whole discussion has been > totally sidetracked, questioning the project as a whole, a project > that has won great acclaim from my fellow core members and was, > among others, called "long overdue" and "badly needed". > > This entire thread came from me trying to ascertain the fundamental > willingness to remove the monolithic servers _at some point_. > > Melanie > > > Gryc Ueusp wrote: >> This is what branches are for. >> >> Melanie wrote: >>> This can not be reasonably done on the forge.. >>> >>> Melanie >>> >>> Charles Krinke wrote: >>> >>>> Sounds like a good argument to put this new work on the forge. >>>> >>>> That way, we can get it wrung out, completed, functional, tested. >>>> >>>> This seems to me a reasonable and proper way to change the underlying > grid servers without having a revolution in mid-air. >>>> >>>> Charles >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ________________________________ >>>> From: Melanie <[email protected]> >>>> To: [email protected] >>>> Sent: Wednesday, July 8, 2009 2:51:39 PM >>>> Subject: Re: [Opensim-dev] Deprecate OpenSim.Grid.InventoryServer and > OpenSim.Grid.AssetServer? >>>> >>>> Which is precisely what is intended. But the old dinosaur servers >>>> are in the way. >>>> >>>> You can rest assured no grids will be harmed in the making of these >>>> servers - to paraphrase the movie industry.... >>>> >>>> Melanie >>>> >>>> Charles Krinke wrote: >>>> >>>>> I believe it is pretty important to ensure that we go forwards in a > compatible manner and not backwards. >>>>> >>>>> Certainly new implementations of servers, executables, protocols and > the like are encouraged, but we also need to make sure that everything > continues to work. >>>>> >>>>> Perhaps this new work should be on the forge. Perhaps it should be done > in such a way that the users can ultimately determine which server is > appropriate in a similar manner to differing physics implementations. >>>>> >>>>> But, regardless, I believe that moving forward in a compatible manner > and making sure we dont shoot ourselves in the foot is very important. I > would counsel caution *and* I would counsel some independent testing to make > sure we are moving forward in a predictable manner. >>>>> >>>>> Charles >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ________________________________ >>>>> From: Melanie <[email protected]> >>>>> To: [email protected] >>>>> Sent: Wednesday, July 8, 2009 2:43:17 PM >>>>> Subject: Re: [Opensim-dev] Deprecate OpenSim.Grid.InventoryServer and > OpenSim.Grid.AssetServer? >>>>> >>>>> This is not going to happen on the drawing board. It can't. And also >>>>> it would be taking the second step before the first. >>>>> >>>>> First, the existing protocols are converted to services, as it has >>>>> already happened to asset and inventory services. Those can then run >>>>> in B.U.S.T. with full compatibility. >>>>> >>>>> Then the old server needs to go away. At this point one code base >>>>> has been replaced with another one without protocol changes. >>>>> >>>>> This creates a scenario where new protocols can be developed and >>>>> tested without breaking things. Here the protocols will evolve as >>>>> they are coded. >>>>> >>>>> Finally, the new protocols will replace the old, after they have >>>>> been tested and used in production by early adopters. >>>>> >>>>> Melanie >>>>> >>>>> MW wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Well as Justin said, there needs to be plans/documents detailing all > the details of the replacement protocols before the process of replacing > them is began. >>>>>> >>>>>> --- On Wed, 8/7/09, Melanie <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> From: Melanie <[email protected]> >>>>>> Subject: Re: [Opensim-dev] Deprecate OpenSim.Grid.InventoryServer and > OpenSim.Grid.AssetServer? >>>>>> To: [email protected] >>>>>> Date: Wednesday, 8 July, 2009, 9:08 PM >>>>>> >>>>>> Hi, >>>>>> >>>>>> Justin Clark-Casey wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> But the real question was about your statement >>>>>>> >>>>>>> "But changes are planned as we are moving to more sane protocols." >>>>>>> >>>>>>> source: > https://lists.berlios.de/pipermail/opensim-dev/2009-July/006992.html >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Who is the 'we' in this? What are these protocols? Why are they > more sane, etc., etc.? This is an entirely different >>>>>>> question to generalizing the OpenSim grid servers. Perhaps they were > not meant to be mixed up in this. >>>>>>> >>>>>> "We" is all of us, the project, for one, and Diva and I as the devs >>>>>> driving this change, too. >>>>>> >>>>>> Today's wire protocols are not sane. There is no point in >>>>>> transferring ALL the user's inventory to EVERY region visited, just >>>>>> to get the root folder ID, which is the only thing needed from that >>>>>> potentially HUGE blob. >>>>>> >>>>>> Just to mention one known bit of insanity. >>>>>> >>>>>> Another part that is not sane is the user services. They aren't >>>>>> natively equipped to handle the concept of no authentication or HG, >>>>>> or user levels, or scopes. They mix in data items that don't belong >>>>>> together just because Linden did. >>>>>> >>>>>> Assets were already made RESTful and so the asset protocol was >>>>>> preserved unchanged. >>>>>> The grid server protocol is a lean one and changes will be minimal >>>>>> (probably just a XMLRPC->REST conversion if they're not REST already) >>>>>> >>>>>> Presence is totally insane again. It needs to be ripped out and >>>>>> redone, now that we know more about real world demands large grids >>>>>> place on the servers. >>>>>> >>>>>> With the modular architecture, that is a simple as snapping in >>>>>> another connector. so if your grid uses a new RESTful gridserver >>>>>> protocol, you just use the RESTGridConnector rather than the >>>>>> XMLLRPCGridConnector. The service providers and consumers stay the > same. >>>>>> >>>>>> The monolithic servers can't cope with that, so they need to go. >>>>>> >>>>>> Melanie >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> 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 > <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 >> >> > _______________________________________________ > 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
