Yes, that dragon needs to be slayed. See note #1 on my "Future of
OpenSimulator" message.It would be nice to actually see the concrete
struggles of those other clients, though.
On 8/16/2015 9:14 PM, Dahlia Trimble wrote:
Awww you had me excited for a moment there....
Regardless, it would be helpful to be able to create presences via
region modules and have them be full-fledged presences from the
perspective of grid services. This is currently a big stumbling block
for implementing client protocols in region modules. There are also LL
client dependencies which also make it difficult, or even impossible
to create a fully capable grid managed presence in another IClientAPI
implementation beside llClientView, so something eventually needs to
happen here if anyone wants to get really serious about OpenSimulator
supporting other protocol implementations besides the LL protocols.
Without such, web-based and other clients are doomed to be second
class citizens unless they use a proxy which translates to LL protocols.
On Sun, Aug 16, 2015 at 8:43 PM, Diva Canto <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
I'm not suggesting getting rid of IClientAPI...
I mean I *wish* we would get rid of it, but that's not what I'm
proposing here. I'm just proposing replacing the ad-hoc reflective
instantiation of IClientNetworkServer that ClientStackManager is
currently doing with a more in-style Region Module.
On 8/16/2015 6:55 PM, Dahlia Trimble wrote:
I like this idea. I have done some physics via the region module
interface and had pretty good luck. I've also done client
protocol implementations in region modules and I can say that the
available interfaces are incomplete for the purposes of the
entire LL protocol suite. I use EventManager for tracking scene
changes and this seems to work ok for the most part but I don't
believe events exist for all events a normal viewer would care
about. There is also the issue of managing presences, teleports
and region border crossings. I've done some workarounds here but
it's not pretty. I suspect a lot of changes to related framework
code would need to be done to be successful. I'm also not sure if
EventManager events are as efficient and CPU friendly as the
direct calls which go thru IClientAPI but I can't say I've seen
anything to suggest (yet) that this could be a problem. There are
also some efficiency hacks in llClientView and related code (lazy
packet initialization for one) which might not easily translate
to a region module.
Regardless, it sounds like a good experiment to try :)
On Sun, Aug 16, 2015 at 6:44 PM, Diva Canto
<[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
We had this conversation today in the IRC about the several
plugin mechanisms currently being used by assorted parts of
OpenSim. A couple of years ago, we made a big push towards
the [new] Region Modules mechanism, and that placed about 95%
of simulator plugins in that bandwagon. However, a couple of
them are still using their own raw "pluginning," and that
makes them hard to (1) explain and (2) distribute as 3rd
party packages. They were left behind.
One of them is Physics, the other is the client
implementations. I would like to propose that we move these
last 2 renegades to the Region Module plugin mechanism, so to
reduce entropy and to make them easier to package. From our
conversation, moving the Physics plugins to region modules is
peaceful. I haven't looked at the client dll yet, but I've
been told that people experimenting with other client
protocols are using region modules anyway.
This affects the MOSES group developing the PhysX plugin, but
it should be straightforward to adjust and it has advantages.
Once we move the existing physics plugins to this new
mechanism, you should be able to do exactly the same to yours
-- the changes aren't that big, and it doesn't affect the
Physics interface at all; it's just the way of connecting the
physics implementation to the interface. Plus it will make it
somewhat easier for you to make your physics plugin available
for external testers at intermediate (early) times, if you want.
Any objections?
_______________________________________________
Opensim-dev mailing list
[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>
http://opensimulator.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev
_______________________________________________
Opensim-dev mailing list
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
http://opensimulator.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev
_______________________________________________
Opensim-dev mailing list
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
http://opensimulator.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev
_______________________________________________
Opensim-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://opensimulator.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev
_______________________________________________
Opensim-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://opensimulator.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev
