You've won the prize of "Common sense guy of the year". +1 on separating discussions... I'm lost since 7th or 8th message
2009/7/9 Stefan Andersson <[email protected]> > 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]<http://mc/[email protected]> > > > >>> To: > >>> [email protected]<http://mc/[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]<http://mc/[email protected]> > > > >>>> To: > >>>> [email protected]<http://mc/[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]<http://mc/[email protected]>> > wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> From: Melanie > >>>>> <[email protected]<http://mc/[email protected]> > > > >>>>> Subject: Re: [Opensim-dev] Deprecate OpenSim.Grid.InventoryServer and > OpenSim.Grid.AssetServer? > >>>>> To: > >>>>> [email protected]<http://mc/[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]<http://mc/[email protected]> > >>>>> https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >>>>> > >>>>> _______________________________________________ > >>>>> Opensim-dev mailing list > >>>>> [email protected]<http://mc/[email protected]> > >>>>> https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev > >>>>> > >>>> _______________________________________________ > >>>> Opensim-dev mailing list > >>>> [email protected]<http://mc/[email protected]> > >>>> https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev<https://lists.berlios..de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >>>> > >>>> _______________________________________________ > >>>> Opensim-dev mailing list > >>>> [email protected]<http://mc/[email protected]> > >>>> https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev > >>>> > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> Opensim-dev mailing list > >>> [email protected]<http://mc/[email protected]> > >>> https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >>> > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> Opensim-dev mailing list > >>> [email protected]<http://mc/[email protected]> > >>> https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev > >>> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Opensim-dev mailing list > >> [email protected]<http://mc/[email protected]> > >> https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev > >> > >> > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Opensim-dev mailing list > > [email protected]<http://mc/[email protected]> > > https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Opensim-dev mailing list > [email protected]<http://mc/[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
