I would vote for the .rxb :-) 2010/11/25 Antti Ilomäki <[email protected]>
> Also on the blog now: > http://realxtend.blogspot.com/2010/11/name-file-extension.html > > 2010/11/25 Toni Alatalo <[email protected]>: > > Hi, > > > > I think we are really close to being able to release a kind of preview > demo of Tundra, i.e. Naali with the server module & executable. One key is > that Jukka wrote a nice doc about how to use the document/scene/application > files and explanation of what they are, and I changed the public doxygen to > use the version from Tundra branch so the page is up at > http://www.realxtend.org/doxygen/tundradocumentfiles.html . I think we > basically just need to write a little more usage docs to at least point to > where the example scenes are and make an installer. > > > > As you can read in the doc, the local server works nicely as a preview / > editor thing -- it is not only for people who want to host servers, but also > for e.g. modellers, texture artists and scripters to easily see how their > things look and work in ReX. The server executable is a normal Naali app, > shows the scene using Ogre etc (but you can optionally run it without gfx > for server usage). A bit like the local scene preview in Naali now, but much > nicer and faster 'cause you don't need a server connection anywhere -- just > run Naali standalone to view local files. By clicking a file in your file > manager so it starts Naali showing that scene. Besides these own document > files in the internal format, you can of course also import dotscene files > as well, and there's support for not only Ogre meshes but Collada too etc. > > > > There is one non-technical issue remaining, and I feel a bit stupid to > bring it up 'cause is kind of nitpicking, but it is something we should get > right the first time so is worth some consideration now. It is the file name > extensions that I was asking about in sprint planning as well. We talked > about with Antti yesterday but didn't conclude and he suggested posting here > to get ideas & feedback, so here we go. Because the issue is non-technical > and I'd like to hear user opinions, decided on last minute to post this to > users list instead of the -dev list. > > > > Currently, like that doc says, we use 'txml' and 'tbin' for so-called > Tundra files. Previously they were just .xml and .bin but the guys added the > t* to make them unique for registering to operating system so that opening > them directly to the right application works. There is a couple of problems > with these names: > > > > 1. That entity-component serialization system is not really Tundra > specific, is not in the server module and not tied to any protocol. It is > implemented in Naali core and was originally and will used with Taiga (to > store Naali EC data on opensim, started in last March or so). I've been > testing the idea of calling the format the 'realxtend format' instead, and > it seems to make sense. Matti K. at least agreed in the meeting. The > counterlogic here goes that Tundra is the name for the design, the > legacy-free usage of pure EC data for making everything without things > hardcoded in e.g. LLUDP / SL assumptions. And that Tundra is a strong nice > sounding name! With this logic if there are some day other implementations > that support the Tundra way, they also implement the Tundra protocol and the > support for Tundra files etc. .. e.g. a modtundra to opensim? This might be > confusing though 'cause otherwise Tundra is the name for the server module > implementation in Naali. One funny point with the current 'txml' and 'tbin' > names is that 'cause Taiga also start withs T, we could say they are both > Tundra and Taiga files :) > > > > 2. Erno argued that there are also many other XML (and of course binary) > files used with Tundra (i.e. Naali), and I think that's a good point. For > example the module loading configuration files are xml, in > modules/core/*.xml -- those could be called 'tundra xml files' as well. It > would be good to say what is in the file in the name, and in one way it is > the scene. Jukka's doc also says "a scene file". So Erno was thinking .rts > for RealXtend Tundra Scene could be it, which is logical enough but I don't > think that sounds too great :o (even though one idea with the generic EC > model is to allow making Real-Time Strategy games :) > > > > I was now thinking of these extensions again, but now with better logic: > > > > .rex - RealXtend Entity XML (earlier just thought it's RealExtendXml :p) > > .rxb - .rex binary (rxb just sounds like 'rex in a tight binary form', > doesn't it?-) > > > > The files are exactly the entities, the whole idea of the formats is to > store the entities, either a full scene or just some selected entities. > There is nothing else in the files, not for example assets like Collada .dae > files can have (dae is 'digital assets exchange'), nor some generic Tundra > config stuff .. only the entity-components with their attribute values. > > > > Opinions? Please anyone tell yours, this is for end users, you don't need > to be a dev to be a stakeholder .. these are the files you are gonna be > using to do work with your stuff! > > > > For folks familiar with OpenSim files, .txml/.rex files are like the > files that save-xml2 writes -- have the full scene, with asset references, > without assets themselves. To make a bundle with assets like OARs are, you > can simply make a zip with e.g. a folder with the assets. I guess we must > come up with a name for these zips later too, like OAR is (they are tar > gzips). If OpenSim gets the generic EC stuff to core some day, then OAR and > tzip/rexzip files may become the same. > > > > ~Toni > > > > -- > > http://groups.google.com/group/realxtend > > http://www.realxtend.org > > -- > http://groups.google.com/group/realxtend > http://www.realxtend.org > -- http://groups.google.com/group/realxtend http://www.realxtend.org
