Re: [Opensim-dev] Proposal for a cleanup/correction of the region-module system
Actaully, how would y'all feel about a simple abstraction of our own; Making an OpenSim.Framework IConfig interface of our own, that just exposes a few, simple config methods, like; TValue IConfig.SetConfigValueTValue(string key, TValue value); TValue IConfig.GetConfigValueTValue(string key, TValue default); Then for each module instantiation the core would just create a 'facade' to the right config source/section (nini or not) - that would be responsible for negotiating config sections and config source (file)name resolution. A simple and elegant solution to getting the nini ref out of the region modules. While we're at it, why don't we introduce a sibling IConfigBridge that the MODULE is optionally supposed to implement, that could provide simple config negotiation info like; string IConfigBridge.GetConfigSectionName(); string IConfigBridge.GetConfigSourceName(); Best regards, Stefan Andersson Tribal Media AB From: a...@deepthink.com.au To: homer.horw...@gmail.com; opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de Date: Sun, 25 Jan 2009 02:37:01 -0500 Subject: Re: [Opensim-dev] Proposal for a cleanup/correction of the region-module system One other suggested change. Let's remove IConfigSource from the RegionModule Initialise method - and instead make some kind of globally accessible (via Scene?) .Config. The reason for this is twofold: 1. We pass config in multiple times, one per scene. 2. It introduces a dependency on Nini that every region module must fill - this is annoying when a module isn't configurable. Regards, Adam -Original Message- From: opensim-dev-boun...@lists.berlios.de [mailto:opensim-dev- boun...@lists.berlios.de] On Behalf Of Homer Horwitz Sent: Saturday, 24 January 2009 12:04 PM To: opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de Subject: [Opensim-dev] Proposal for a cleanup/correction of the region- module system Hi all, the current system for handling region-modules is slightly broken if you add/remove regions dynamically (or even for region-restarts). I've put up some thoughts at http://opensimulator.org/wiki/New_Region_Modules for discussion. Please answer on the associated 'discussion' page or here on the list. Cheers, Homer ___ Opensim-dev mailing list Opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev ___ Opensim-dev mailing list Opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev ___ Opensim-dev mailing list Opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev
Re: [Opensim-dev] Proposal for a cleanup/correction of the region-module system
Any chance we could finish this up soon? It's hard to work on OpenSimulator when I have to do a clean checkout every few days or the pluginloader throws errors. Best Regards Teravus On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 8:13 AM, Melanie mela...@t-data.com wrote: I'm not happy with that. I see no evil in the nini references and I like the option of using nin for private config files outside of OpenSim.ini. Also, I have several modules that read the config from another module, so they need to be able to address sections. Limiting it like that would take away significant functionality for little, if any, gain. Melanie Stefan Andersson wrote: Actaully, how would y'all feel about a simple abstraction of our own; Making an OpenSim.Framework IConfig interface of our own, that just exposes a few, simple config methods, like; TValue IConfig.SetConfigValueTValue(string key, TValue value); TValue IConfig.GetConfigValueTValue(string key, TValue default); Then for each module instantiation the core would just create a 'facade' to the right config source/section (nini or not) - that would be responsible for negotiating config sections and config source (file)name resolution. A simple and elegant solution to getting the nini ref out of the region modules. While we're at it, why don't we introduce a sibling IConfigBridge that the MODULE is optionally supposed to implement, that could provide simple config negotiation info like; string IConfigBridge.GetConfigSectionName(); string IConfigBridge.GetConfigSourceName(); Best regards, Stefan Andersson Tribal Media AB From: a...@deepthink.com.au To: homer.horw...@gmail.com; opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de Date: Sun, 25 Jan 2009 02:37:01 -0500 Subject: Re: [Opensim-dev] Proposal for a cleanup/correction of the region-module system One other suggested change. Let's remove IConfigSource from the RegionModule Initialise method - and instead make some kind of globally accessible (via Scene?) .Config. The reason for this is twofold: 1. We pass config in multiple times, one per scene. 2. It introduces a dependency on Nini that every region module must fill - this is annoying when a module isn't configurable. Regards, Adam -Original Message- From: opensim-dev-boun...@lists.berlios.de [mailto:opensim-dev- boun...@lists.berlios.de] On Behalf Of Homer Horwitz Sent: Saturday, 24 January 2009 12:04 PM To: opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de Subject: [Opensim-dev] Proposal for a cleanup/correction of the region- module system Hi all, the current system for handling region-modules is slightly broken if you add/remove regions dynamically (or even for region-restarts). I've put up some thoughts at http://opensimulator.org/wiki/New_Region_Modules for discussion. Please answer on the associated 'discussion' page or here on the list. Cheers, Homer ___ Opensim-dev mailing list Opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev ___ Opensim-dev mailing list Opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev ___ Opensim-dev mailing list Opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev ___ Opensim-dev mailing list Opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev ___ Opensim-dev mailing list Opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev
Re: [Opensim-dev] Proposal for a cleanup/correction of the region-module system
Melanie wrote: I'm not happy with that. I see no evil in the nini references and I like the option of using nin for private config files outside of OpenSim.ini. Also, I have several modules that read the config from another module, so they need to be able to address sections. Limiting it like that would take away significant functionality for little, if any, gain. +1 i like the idea of a global config anchor though. -- dr dirk husemann virtual worlds research ibm zurich research lab SL: dr scofield drscofi...@xyzzyxyzzy.net http://xyzzyxyzzy.net/ RL: h...@zurich.ibm.com - +41 44 724 8573 - http://www.zurich.ibm.com/~hud/ ___ Opensim-dev mailing list Opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev
Re: [Opensim-dev] Proposal for a cleanup/correction of the region-module system
Homer Horwitz wrote: Ok, I'll try to summarize a bit: Sean had the great idea to use a dialect-independent way of naming our methods: I'll use Init and PostInit :-) Justin wondered whether we need an Init* method at all or if we just could init on first region-add. The benefit of a separate Init + PostInit method is, that you can do things before any region has been added, but after all the (shared) modules have been initialized. I don't know whether that's necessary, but on the other hand, it doesn't hurt to have that possibility. It doesn't cost anything, after all. I could add some abstract base classes with default implementations, so you don't have to add an empty Init-method if you don't need it, but that's more or less syntactic sugar... Fair enough - though I think I was messing about more with the need for Init() and Close() at all. But this was something of a mental experiment - it does make things more readable and reduce the need for conditions if there are such explicit methods. About the configuration: I don't like the idea of getting the config from the scene much, because (at least currently), configuration is owned by the server, not by one of its regions/scenes. While I understand that some modules won't need a configuration, having to add the Nini reference for a fresh region-module doesn't seem too difficult to me (the currently available ones already have that reference, so no change there). Even if we change that and will have region-specific parts of the configuration, the config as a whole will still be in the responsibility of the server, not the region, in my opinion. Also fair enough from my perspective. We need a possibility to disable modules (preferably without first loading them) without removing the *.dll; and there were some wishes about the loader, pro and contra Mono.Addins. I think I'll have a look at Mono.Addins (including the IPlugin interface and the disable-by-config); it's the one we use already, and I agree that we should use only one loader, if possible without having to use too many workarounds. If not, ExtensionLoader might win ;-) I feel that using ExtensionLoader here is effectively the same decision as using it everywhere, since in the long term I really don't think that we want multiple module systems. what happens to avatars that are in a region that you want to restart then? are they kicked out first? should they stay? As the region goes down, they can't stay. So, either they will be moved away (TP home, maybe?) or they will be kicked out. Kicking them out might be the easier thing (and consistent with the SL behavior, too); TP home might be difficult if it is the home-region that is restarted. I plan to do the move in an as compatible way as possible; if everything works as intended, the old modules will continue to work for a time. The move will happen in several steps - Implementation of the new module system (while keeping the old one functional) - Marking the old one as deprecated - Moving over all the available core region modules to the new system - Removing the old region module system Especially the third part will take some time (not because it is hard, I don't think it is, but because we have quite a few modules)... Thanks for all the contributions :-) Any last comments? Go Homer! Cheers, Homer ___ Opensim-dev mailing list Opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev -- justincc Justin Clark-Casey http://justincc.wordpress.com ___ Opensim-dev mailing list Opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev
Re: [Opensim-dev] Proposal for a cleanup/correction of the region-module system
Hi, PostInitialise is extremely important, because it is called at a time when all modules' Initialise has been run. That means, all modules have registered their interfaces and RequestModuleInterface() is safe to use in PostInitialise _only_ in a module context. Several existing implementations would be rendered inoperative and actually impossible if there were no PostInitialise. Melanie Justin Clark-Casey wrote: Homer Horwitz wrote: Ok, I'll try to summarize a bit: Sean had the great idea to use a dialect-independent way of naming our methods: I'll use Init and PostInit :-) Justin wondered whether we need an Init* method at all or if we just could init on first region-add. The benefit of a separate Init + PostInit method is, that you can do things before any region has been added, but after all the (shared) modules have been initialized. I don't know whether that's necessary, but on the other hand, it doesn't hurt to have that possibility. It doesn't cost anything, after all. I could add some abstract base classes with default implementations, so you don't have to add an empty Init-method if you don't need it, but that's more or less syntactic sugar... Fair enough - though I think I was messing about more with the need for Init() and Close() at all. But this was something of a mental experiment - it does make things more readable and reduce the need for conditions if there are such explicit methods. About the configuration: I don't like the idea of getting the config from the scene much, because (at least currently), configuration is owned by the server, not by one of its regions/scenes. While I understand that some modules won't need a configuration, having to add the Nini reference for a fresh region-module doesn't seem too difficult to me (the currently available ones already have that reference, so no change there). Even if we change that and will have region-specific parts of the configuration, the config as a whole will still be in the responsibility of the server, not the region, in my opinion. Also fair enough from my perspective. We need a possibility to disable modules (preferably without first loading them) without removing the *.dll; and there were some wishes about the loader, pro and contra Mono.Addins. I think I'll have a look at Mono.Addins (including the IPlugin interface and the disable-by-config); it's the one we use already, and I agree that we should use only one loader, if possible without having to use too many workarounds. If not, ExtensionLoader might win ;-) I feel that using ExtensionLoader here is effectively the same decision as using it everywhere, since in the long term I really don't think that we want multiple module systems. what happens to avatars that are in a region that you want to restart then? are they kicked out first? should they stay? As the region goes down, they can't stay. So, either they will be moved away (TP home, maybe?) or they will be kicked out. Kicking them out might be the easier thing (and consistent with the SL behavior, too); TP home might be difficult if it is the home-region that is restarted. I plan to do the move in an as compatible way as possible; if everything works as intended, the old modules will continue to work for a time. The move will happen in several steps - Implementation of the new module system (while keeping the old one functional) - Marking the old one as deprecated - Moving over all the available core region modules to the new system - Removing the old region module system Especially the third part will take some time (not because it is hard, I don't think it is, but because we have quite a few modules)... Thanks for all the contributions :-) Any last comments? Go Homer! Cheers, Homer ___ Opensim-dev mailing list Opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev ___ Opensim-dev mailing list Opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev
Re: [Opensim-dev] Proposal for a cleanup/correction of the region-module system
Hi, On Sun, 1 Feb 2009 18:51:33 +0100 Homer Horwitz homerhorw...@googlemail.com wrote: We need a possibility to disable modules (preferably without first loading them) without removing the *.dll; and there were some wishes about the loader, pro and contra Mono.Addins. I think I'll have a look at Mono.Addins (including the IPlugin interface and the disable-by-config); it's the one we use already, and I agree that we should use only one loader, if possible without having to use too many workarounds. If not, ExtensionLoader might win ;-) Have a read through the Introduction to Mono.Addins[1] and the Mono.Addins Reference Manual[2]. It's a bit repetitive, but it will give you a good idea of what Mono.Addins is capable of. I feel better about using it the more time I spend looking at it. It just needs to be understood to be used effectively. Feel free to ping me if you have any questions. Thanks, Mike [1] http://www.mono-project.com/Introduction_to_Mono.Addins [2] http://www.mono-project.com/Mono.Addins_Reference_Manual ___ Opensim-dev mailing list Opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev
Re: [Opensim-dev] Proposal for a cleanup/correction of the region-module system
Homer Horwitz wrote: Hi all, the current system for handling region-modules is slightly broken if you add/remove regions dynamically (or even for region-restarts). I've put up some thoughts at http://opensimulator.org/wiki/New_Region_Modules for discussion. Please answer on the associated 'discussion' page or here on the list. Nice proposal Homer. Here's another thought (to add to the pile). Is there really any point having an Initialise method at all? 1) Adam's idea of hanging the config off the scene and not passing it in via Initialise(IConfigSource) both disgusts and excites me. Disgust because it feels a bit wrong to tie Config in to Scene that closely (though maybe that's really just because Scene should be called Region). But exciting because I can imagine that we do want per region config at some point (it would be cool to be in space on one region and on Jupiter in another on the same server). Non-shared modules could still grab their config from the first scene that comes in (though having to do an if condition on the first scene will look less elegant than doing things without conditions in Initialise(). Then one could perhaps get rid of Initialise() completely and just do all initialization when the first region is added. One could almost get rid of Close() in the same way (perform close instead when the last region has been removed). Though in this case I can more easily imagine that one would want to remove all regions before adding more on the same instance (which might unnecessarily incur expensive cpu operations when initialize is called again). I'm probably just trying to be unnecessarily clever here. And I have a feeling these kinds of issues have probably already been addressed in some module system somewhere... :) 2) Is there any point on giving the Scene again in RemoveRegion? Would it be clearer just to give the region UUID instead or are there advantages to passing in Scene again? 3) On the spelling issue, I'm with MW - I think you Americans should just suck it up. I once had to work on an IBM product called WebSphere Product Center so I think that there should be some payback :) (an Init() compromise is fine though, I guess. Bring back the Empire, I say). -- justincc Justin Clark-Casey http://justincc.wordpress.com ___ Opensim-dev mailing list Opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev
Re: [Opensim-dev] Proposal for a cleanup/correction of the region-module system
MW wrote: I have to say I'm not a big fan of what I've seen of mono.addins so far. Maybe ExtensionLoader is better, so I do think we should look at that. As I think it is better to only have one system of loading plugins/modules. As for initialise vs Initialize, hehe. Well personally I think it should stay as it is. I really see no reason to change it. I do know of other opensource projects that use initialise, Ogre being one. And it would be as hard for me to remember to look/search for Initialize as it would be for you to look for initialise. So my vote is a strong keep to UK english or even the mix we have (because some bits are in US english). But I really don't think people should have to switch code that is there to US english. Sorry thats a point I do feel quite strongly on. But saying that if everyone else voted in favour of that switch I wouldn't stand in the way. Just would think it was wrong. Any code I write is just likely to have uk spelling. The same way any code you write is likely to have US spelling. And opensim has had the UK spelling from the start. so, +1 on keeping the UK spelling :-) DrS/dirk -- dr dirk husemann virtual worlds research ibm zurich research lab SL: dr scofield drscofi...@xyzzyxyzzy.net http://xyzzyxyzzy.net/ RL: h...@zurich.ibm.com - +41 44 724 8573 - http://www.zurich.ibm.com/~hud/ ___ Opensim-dev mailing list Opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev
Re: [Opensim-dev] Proposal for a cleanup/correction of the region-module system
Charles Krinke wrote: ROFL. Oh, it was the 'z' versus the 's' you were discussing. I thought it was the i versus the I. ROFL. yeah, i can imagine there are folks out there that object to the capital I as being too capitalistic... -- dr dirk husemann virtual worlds research ibm zurich research lab SL: dr scofield drscofi...@xyzzyxyzzy.net http://xyzzyxyzzy.net/ RL: h...@zurich.ibm.com - +41 44 724 8573 - http://www.zurich.ibm.com/~hud/ ___ Opensim-dev mailing list Opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev
Re: [Opensim-dev] Proposal for a cleanup/correction of the region-module system
Ryan McDougall wrote: My apologies for thread-jacking... I just want to be clear I didn't propose it because I came later and decided I didn't like UK spelling. I am Canadian and historically Canadians have used UK spelling. I proposed it for the same reason (US) English is the standard language of all things international; business, science, open source, etc: we have to pick one anyway, there will be more people unhappy with the choice than happy, so might as well just pick the most common one and suck it up. so, to balance things a bit, if we actually do want to standardize one spelling system, i'd say, let's standardize on the UK variant then, given that that is the one OpenSim was born with. -- dr dirk husemann virtual worlds research ibm zurich research lab SL: dr scofield drscofi...@xyzzyxyzzy.net http://xyzzyxyzzy.net/ RL: h...@zurich.ibm.com - +41 44 724 8573 - http://www.zurich.ibm.com/~hud/ ___ Opensim-dev mailing list Opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev
Re: [Opensim-dev] Proposal for a cleanup/correction of the region-module system
MW wrote: But do we standardize on one variant or standardise on that? Sorry couldn't stop myself :) that was a test :-) or was that a tezt? :-D DrS/dirk -- dr dirk husemann virtual worlds research ibm zurich research lab SL: dr scofield drscofi...@xyzzyxyzzy.net http://xyzzyxyzzy.net/ RL: h...@zurich.ibm.com - +41 44 724 8573 - http://www.zurich.ibm.com/~hud/ ___ Opensim-dev mailing list Opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev
Re: [Opensim-dev] Proposal for a cleanup/correction of the region-module system
This is more to do with how we use Mono.Addins, but we really should make it a lot easier to separate the various UGAIM servers, so that each one can be in its own directory without needing the other UGAIM exe's to be in there. By default we have the loading of plugins referencing all the UGAIM servers. So that if all the UGAIM servers.exe's aren't in that directory, then no plugins will be loaded. Mike Mazur mma...@gmail.com wrote: Hi, On Sat, 24 Jan 2009 22:59:26 +0200 Ryan McDougall wrote: 1. Can we unify RegionModules with IPlugin system I did a while ago? This would mean learning and using Mono.Addins, or ExtensionLoader if that is Mono.Addins's replacement. I'd like to suggest sticking with Mono.Addins. While it is a bit big, has a steeper learning curve and requires more calls to load a module, it may prove to be pretty useful in the future when people want to do more complicated things with modules. It is being actively developed by a wider community, is used in large projects and is based on the Eclipse add-in engine[1]. ExtensionLoader is nice and small and loads modules well. If/when OpenSim graduates to more complex module use cases, we may find ExtensionLoader lacking. Any missing features in ExtensionLoader would need to be coded by those who need it. Mike [1] http://www.mono-project.com/Introduction_to_Mono.Addins ___ Opensim-dev mailing list Opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev ___ Opensim-dev mailing list Opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev
Re: [Opensim-dev] Proposal for a cleanup/correction of the region-module system
Ideia Boa wrote: I think it was a te5t not a te2t :) oop5, m3 b4d. Dr5/d1rk Dr Scofield wrote: MW wrote: But do we standardize on one variant or standardise on that? Sorry couldn't stop myself :) that was a test :-) or was that a tezt? :-D DrS/dirk ___ Opensim-dev mailing list Opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev -- dr dirk husemann virtual worlds research ibm zurich research lab SL: dr scofield drscofi...@xyzzyxyzzy.net http://xyzzyxyzzy.net/ RL: h...@zurich.ibm.com - +41 44 724 8573 - http://www.zurich.ibm.com/~hud/ ___ Opensim-dev mailing list Opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev
Re: [Opensim-dev] Proposal for a cleanup/correction of the region-module system
On Sun, Jan 25, 2009 at 3:33 AM, Jeff Ames jeffa...@gmail.com wrote: ... For a non-shared module, is there a functional difference between Initialise and AddRegion? Likewise with RemoveRegion and Close. Registration happens in Initialise, so when the AddRegion call happens, all the modules are available already. Same for RemoveRegion and Close: During RemoveRegion, all the modules are still available. During Close, some might have been closed before your module is closed. On Sun, Jan 25, 2009 at 8:39 AM, Frisby, Adam a...@deepthink.com.au wrote: For shared modules, is there some technical reason or use case that requires a PostInitialise after Initialise? The only case I can think of is interdependent region modules that need each other to be initialized before they can add regions. [Frisby, Adam] Close - it's more so you can start 'doing things' after every region has been registered. Prior to PostInitialise you cannot be sure that everything has been constructed yet, and/or other modules have registered their interfaces. Actually, in the new one PostInitialise happens after every *Initialise* has been run, not after every *AddRegion* has been run. You just can't execute a method once after all regions has been registered, as I can add regions on the fly (that's one of the problems I see with the old version as stated in the Wiki article): You'll either end up calling it more than once for some regions (if you call it after every AddRegion), or not at all for some regions (if you call it only once). But for the intended new semantics: good point, Jedd, I added that just because it is in the current system. In PostInitialise, all the (shared) modules have been registered already. On the other hand, it's the same in AddRegion, and I'd find it more consistent to the non-shared modules to not depend on PostInitialise in the shared ones (in AddRegion, the non-shared modules are available, too). If you have to do something that should happen after all the shared modules are initiali(z|s)ed, it might make sense to postpone it a bit further and do it when the first region is added. So, +1 for making the interface a bit smaller and removing PostInitialise. Cheers, Homer ___ Opensim-dev mailing list Opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev
Re: [Opensim-dev] Proposal for a cleanup/correction of the region-module system
My apologies for thread-jacking... I just want to be clear I didn't propose it because I came later and decided I didn't like UK spelling. I am Canadian and historically Canadians have used UK spelling. I proposed it for the same reason (US) English is the standard language of all things international; business, science, open source, etc: we have to pick one anyway, there will be more people unhappy with the choice than happy, so might as well just pick the most common one and suck it up. That said, I don't actually care a lot UK v. US. However, I *do* think there should be coding standards and I *do* think they should be enforced, regardless of what any individual person likes. That means naming conventions, indentation, and spelling. Its an issue of common standards, professionalism, code quality, and cooperation. Cheers, On Sun, Jan 25, 2009 at 12:35 PM, MW michaelwr...@yahoo.co.uk wrote: Yeah I wasn't really being serious that we should try to get as many spelling systems or langauges as we can. So I do agree that it would be best to have one, but its hard to force people to use one system if that is different to what they are used to. Its just natural to spell as you normally do. But if we are going with one then my vote has to be for UK spelling, as I said thats how the project started and to be honest I think it would be wrong to swap it later because as more people joined they decided they didn't like the spelling system. We really did have it in the code standards at one time that we used UK spelling. And also we have about as many core developers from the UK as anywhere else. But saying all that in the grand scheme of things this isn't really a big deal. Sean Dague sda...@gmail.com wrote: bMW wrote: But it is in our code standards somewhere that we use UK spelling in opensim code. ;) Or it used to be in there. But no I don't think really we can force people to use a different system of spelling to what they are used to. As I feel as strong about not liking the US spelling as you do about UK ones. But I would be extremely sad if all the current code was swapped to US spelling. This was started as a UK project as it was just myself working on it at the start. But its now a international project, let lets try and get as many spelling systems as possible in there, lets even try for different languages ;) Honestly, we should pick one and run with it, and I don't really care which one. The lack of standardization here causes plenty of confusion for those of us not in auto-completing environments about which version to use. :) -Sean -- Sean Dague / Neas Bade sda...@gmail.com http://dague.net ___ Opensim-dev mailing list Opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev ___ Opensim-dev mailing list Opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev ___ Opensim-dev mailing list Opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev
Re: [Opensim-dev] Proposal for a cleanup/correction of the region-module system
On that page it did use to say we used UK spelling, but that seems to have got lost through time. On this whole subject I do think we should stay with Uk spelling, but I don't see it as that big a deal, if we all decide to swap to US spellings then so be it. But I don't agree that US spelling is the standard of open source. I think most opensource projects use it because there are more people in the world that use US spellings than UK. So the people starting those projects use whatever system they are used to. But in my mind that doesn't actually make it a standard per se. If you look at most of the opensource projects that were started by UK/Commonwealth people then they generally use UK spelling (again Ogre being a example). But again I think we should just vote and see what the result is. With a majority wins I guess. Teravus Ovares tera...@gmail.com wrote: Hmm.. whenever someone brings up an issue of common standards, professionalism, code quality, and cooperation, I get suspitious.. what might he 'really' be trying to do? *cough*.. anyway. Wasn't there some kind of coding standards document on the wiki? ohai! , it's here: http://opensimulator.org/wiki/Coding_standards Might want to move the s vs z debate to the discussion page? -Teravus On 1/25/09, Ryan McDougall wrote: My apologies for thread-jacking... I just want to be clear I didn't propose it because I came later and decided I didn't like UK spelling. I am Canadian and historically Canadians have used UK spelling. I proposed it for the same reason (US) English is the standard language of all things international; business, science, open source, etc: we have to pick one anyway, there will be more people unhappy with the choice than happy, so might as well just pick the most common one and suck it up. That said, I don't actually care a lot UK v. US. However, I *do* think there should be coding standards and I *do* think they should be enforced, regardless of what any individual person likes. That means naming conventions, indentation, and spelling. Its an issue of common standards, professionalism, code quality, and cooperation. Cheers, On Sun, Jan 25, 2009 at 12:35 PM, MW wrote: Yeah I wasn't really being serious that we should try to get as many spelling systems or langauges as we can. So I do agree that it would be best to have one, but its hard to force people to use one system if that is different to what they are used to. Its just natural to spell as you normally do. But if we are going with one then my vote has to be for UK spelling, as I said thats how the project started and to be honest I think it would be wrong to swap it later because as more people joined they decided they didn't like the spelling system. We really did have it in the code standards at one time that we used UK spelling. And also we have about as many core developers from the UK as anywhere else. But saying all that in the grand scheme of things this isn't really a big deal. Sean Dague wrote: bMW wrote: But it is in our code standards somewhere that we use UK spelling in opensim code. ;) Or it used to be in there. But no I don't think really we can force people to use a different system of spelling to what they are used to. As I feel as strong about not liking the US spelling as you do about UK ones. But I would be extremely sad if all the current code was swapped to US spelling. This was started as a UK project as it was just myself working on it at the start. But its now a international project, let lets try and get as many spelling systems as possible in there, lets even try for different languages ;) Honestly, we should pick one and run with it, and I don't really care which one. The lack of standardization here causes plenty of confusion for those of us not in auto-completing environments about which version to use. :) -Sean -- Sean Dague / Neas Bade sda...@gmail.com http://dague.net ___ Opensim-dev mailing list Opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev ___ Opensim-dev mailing list Opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev ___ Opensim-dev mailing list Opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev ___ Opensim-dev mailing list Opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev ___ Opensim-dev mailing list Opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev
Re: [Opensim-dev] Proposal for a cleanup/correction of the region-module system
On Sun, Jan 25, 2009 at 12:56 PM, Teravus Ovares tera...@gmail.com wrote: Hmm.. whenever someone brings up an issue of common standards, professionalism, code quality, and cooperation, I get suspitious.. what might he 'really' be trying to do? *cough*.. anyway. Software Engineering? Wasn't there some kind of coding standards document on the wiki? ohai! , it's here: http://opensimulator.org/wiki/Coding_standards Now if only one day it'll be followed Might want to move the s vs z debate to the discussion page? -Teravus On 1/25/09, Ryan McDougall sempu...@gmail.com wrote: My apologies for thread-jacking... I just want to be clear I didn't propose it because I came later and decided I didn't like UK spelling. I am Canadian and historically Canadians have used UK spelling. I proposed it for the same reason (US) English is the standard language of all things international; business, science, open source, etc: we have to pick one anyway, there will be more people unhappy with the choice than happy, so might as well just pick the most common one and suck it up. That said, I don't actually care a lot UK v. US. However, I *do* think there should be coding standards and I *do* think they should be enforced, regardless of what any individual person likes. That means naming conventions, indentation, and spelling. Its an issue of common standards, professionalism, code quality, and cooperation. Cheers, On Sun, Jan 25, 2009 at 12:35 PM, MW michaelwr...@yahoo.co.uk wrote: Yeah I wasn't really being serious that we should try to get as many spelling systems or langauges as we can. So I do agree that it would be best to have one, but its hard to force people to use one system if that is different to what they are used to. Its just natural to spell as you normally do. But if we are going with one then my vote has to be for UK spelling, as I said thats how the project started and to be honest I think it would be wrong to swap it later because as more people joined they decided they didn't like the spelling system. We really did have it in the code standards at one time that we used UK spelling. And also we have about as many core developers from the UK as anywhere else. But saying all that in the grand scheme of things this isn't really a big deal. Sean Dague sda...@gmail.com wrote: bMW wrote: But it is in our code standards somewhere that we use UK spelling in opensim code. ;) Or it used to be in there. But no I don't think really we can force people to use a different system of spelling to what they are used to. As I feel as strong about not liking the US spelling as you do about UK ones. But I would be extremely sad if all the current code was swapped to US spelling. This was started as a UK project as it was just myself working on it at the start. But its now a international project, let lets try and get as many spelling systems as possible in there, lets even try for different languages ;) Honestly, we should pick one and run with it, and I don't really care which one. The lack of standardization here causes plenty of confusion for those of us not in auto-completing environments about which version to use. :) -Sean -- Sean Dague / Neas Bade sda...@gmail.com http://dague.net ___ Opensim-dev mailing list Opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev ___ Opensim-dev mailing list Opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev ___ Opensim-dev mailing list Opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev ___ Opensim-dev mailing list Opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev ___ Opensim-dev mailing list Opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev
Re: [Opensim-dev] Proposal for a cleanup/correction of the region-module system
Or we can use either '2' or '5' instead of 'Z' and 'S' .
'2' being closer to Z. And '5' being closer to S.
So maybe we should vote on if it should be 2 or 5 we use.
Teravus Ovares tera...@gmail.com wrote: Lets make purposeful mispellings..
like website addresses.. so that
when people type the correct ones, they go to a phishing site.
On 1/25/09, MW wrote:
+1000, that sounds like a good compromise. Then everyone has to make a
effect to make sure their spellings are correct.
Frisby, Adam wrote:
I can get our Shanghai office to translate our comments into Cantonese if
that would help. J
From: opensim-dev-boun...@lists.berlios.de
[mailto:opensim-dev-boun...@lists.berlios.de] On Behalf Of
MW
Sent: Saturday, 24 January 2009 4:56 PM
To: opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de
Subject: Re: [Opensim-dev] Proposal for a cleanup/correction of the
region-module system
But it is in our code standards somewhere that we use UK spelling in opensim
code. ;) Or it used to be in there.
But no I don't think really we can force people to use a different system of
spelling to what they are used to. As I feel as strong about not liking the
US spelling as you do about UK ones.
But I would be extremely sad if all the current code was swapped to US
spelling. This was started as a UK project as it was just myself working on
it at the start.
But its now a international project, let lets try and get as many spelling
systems as possible in there, lets even try for different languages ;)
Dahlia Trimble wrote:
I'm not really a fan of UK zpelling,,, but I imagine people uzing grep could
zearch for initiali
I'll probably continue to uze the UZ englizh zpelling in my code ;)
On Sat, Jan 24, 2009 at 4:32 PM, MW wrote:
I have to say I'm not a big fan of what I've seen of mono.addins so far.
Maybe ExtensionLoader is better, so I do think we should look at that. As I
think it is better to only have one system of loading plugins/modules.
As for initialise vs Initialize, hehe. Well personally I think it should
stay as it is. I really see no reason to change it. I do know of other
opensource projects that use initialise, Ogre being one. And it would be as
hard for me to remember to look/search for Initialize as it would be for you
to look for initialise.
So my vote is a strong keep to UK english or even the mix we have (because
some bits are in US english). But I really don't think people should have to
switch code that is there to US english. Sorry thats a point I do feel quite
strongly on.
But saying that if everyone else voted in favour of that switch I wouldn't
stand in the way. Just would think it was wrong. Any code I write is just
likely to have uk spelling. The same way any code you write is likely to
have US spelling. And opensim has had the UK spelling from the start.
Ryan McDougall wrote:
On Sat, Jan 24, 2009 at 10:04 PM, Homer Horwitz
wrote:
Hi all,
the current system for handling region-modules is slightly broken if
you add/remove regions dynamically (or even for region-restarts). I've
put up some thoughts at
http://opensimulator.org/wiki/New_Region_Modules for
discussion.
Please answer on the associated 'discussion' page or here on the list.
Cheers,
Homer
I have two requests:
1. Can we unify RegionModules with IPlugin system I did a while ago?
This would mean learning and using Mono.Addins, or ExtensionLoader if
that is Mono.Addins's replacement.
Let's just use one system. I am not sure there is a semantic reason
why they should be different.
I didn't touch it myself because I didn't/don't understand the
delicate internals of RegionModules, and was worried about precisely
the sort of issues raised by Homer.
Also, Dispose() can be used in using{} statements. Lets use it, or
have a base class default to Dispose(){ Close(); }.
2. Can we standardize on US English?
I know our illustrious founder MW speaks the Queen's English, which is
the language of the educated; its not really fair to enforce the
linguistic hegemony of the country that spawned GWB and Britany Spears
in our dear pool of sanity and righteousness; but every open source
project I've ever worked on spells it Initialize. Including
Mono.Addins.
You have no idea how times I had to grep my source for Initialize in
order to make it compile. :(
Cheers,
___
Opensim-dev mailing list
Opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de
https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev
___
Opensim-dev mailing list
Opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de
https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev
___
Opensim-dev mailing list
Opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de
https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev
___
Opensim-dev mailing list
Opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de
Re: [Opensim-dev] Proposal for a cleanup/correction of the region-module system
As this thread has been thoroughly hijacked, I guess there aren't any further relevant (um, I meant technical) problems with the proposal? Cheers, Homer ___ Opensim-dev mailing list Opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev
Re: [Opensim-dev] Proposal for a cleanup/correction of the region-module system
MW wrote: Yeah I wasn't really being serious that we should try to get as many spelling systems or langauges as we can. So I do agree that it would be best to have one, but its hard to force people to use one system if that is different to what they are used to. Its just natural to spell as you normally do. But if we are going with one then my vote has to be for UK spelling, as I said thats how the project started and to be honest I think it would be wrong to swap it later because as more people joined they decided they didn't like the spelling system. We really did have it in the code standards at one time that we used UK spelling. And also we have about as many core developers from the UK as anywhere else. But saying all that in the grand scheme of things this isn't really a big deal. What if we just shorten it to Init? It has the advantages of being short, and not running into spelling nuances. If people like such a plan, I'll convert the code next week to it. -Sean -- Sean Dague / Neas Bade sda...@gmail.com http://dague.net signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Opensim-dev mailing list Opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev
Re: [Opensim-dev] Proposal for a cleanup/correction of the region-module system
Homer Horwitz wrote: On Sun, Jan 25, 2009 at 6:13 PM, Justin Clark-Casey jjusti...@googlemail.com wrote: Could you wait a couple more days on this? I don't really have the opportunity to give this the attention that it deserves today (Sunday) and I may not be around at all tomorrow but I should have some think time on Tuesday. Perhaps having a standard timeframe of something like a week for responses to proposals would be a good idea. Yes, I planned to do that anyway, I just wanted to try to get the thread back on topic. I'll wait 'til next weekend (won't have much time before that anyway). Heh, thanks Homer, you're a good'un. -- justincc Justin Clark-Casey http://justincc.wordpress.com ___ Opensim-dev mailing list Opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev
Re: [Opensim-dev] Proposal for a cleanup/correction of the region-module system
actually should we wait a while and get more reaction. As this is going to effect anyone who has a module that isn't in trunk. Seems a lot of hasle for such a small thing. Would seem better to wait and make the change when/if we change to homer's new module interface. MW michaelwr...@yahoo.co.uk wrote: Sounds good to me. If as it is, is really causing problems. Sean Dague sda...@gmail.com wrote: MW wrote: Yeah I wasn't really being serious that we should try to get as many spelling systems or langauges as we can. So I do agree that it would be best to have one, but its hard to force people to use one system if that is different to what they are used to. Its just natural to spell as you normally do. But if we are going with one then my vote has to be for UK spelling, as I said thats how the project started and to be honest I think it would be wrong to swap it later because as more people joined they decided they didn't like the spelling system. We really did have it in the code standards at one time that we used UK spelling. And also we have about as many core developers from the UK as anywhere else. But saying all that in the grand scheme of things this isn't really a big deal. What if we just shorten it to Init? It has the advantages of being short, and not running into spelling nuances. If people like such a plan, I'll convert the code next week to it. -Sean -- Sean Dague / Neas Bade sda...@gmail.com http://dague.net ___ Opensim-dev mailing list Opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev ___ Opensim-dev mailing list Opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev ___ Opensim-dev mailing list Opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev
Re: [Opensim-dev] Proposal for a cleanup/correction of the region-module system
MW wrote: actually should we wait a while and get more reaction. As this is going to effect anyone who has a module that isn't in trunk. Seems a lot of hasle for such a small thing. Would seem better to wait and make the change when/if we change to homer's new module interface. Yes, agreed. I'll both wait for reactions, and wait for Homer's work, to minimize the number of times we break things. I think normalizing that would make sense prior to 0.7, just to give us some more consistency. I know every time I walk someone new through parts of the code there is a lot of head scratching over the inconsistency. For those of us that have been here a long time, we are used to it. From the outside it looks like we are all just a bunch of crazies... which may or may not be true, but I'd rather not get the reputation from method naming. :) -Sean -- Sean Dague / Neas Bade sda...@gmail.com http://dague.net signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Opensim-dev mailing list Opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev
Re: [Opensim-dev] Proposal for a cleanup/correction of the region-module system
Ok, so I suggest we establish an 0.7 roadmap page. With that one as a 'definite', not a 'discussion'.Best regards,Stefan AnderssonTribal Media AB Date: Sun, 25 Jan 2009 15:27:29 -0500 From: sda...@gmail.com To: opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de Subject: Re: [Opensim-dev] Proposal for a cleanup/correction of the region-module system MW wrote: actually should we wait a while and get more reaction. As this is going to effect anyone who has a module that isn't in trunk. Seems a lot of hasle for such a small thing. Would seem better to wait and make the change when/if we change to homer's new module interface. Yes, agreed. I'll both wait for reactions, and wait for Homer's work, to minimize the number of times we break things. I think normalizing that would make sense prior to 0.7, just to give us some more consistency. I know every time I walk someone new through parts of the code there is a lot of head scratching over the inconsistency. For those of us that have been here a long time, we are used to it. From the outside it looks like we are all just a bunch of crazies... which may or may not be true, but I'd rather not get the reputation from method naming. :) -Sean -- Sean Dague / Neas Bade sda...@gmail.com http://dague.net ___ Opensim-dev mailing list Opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev
[Opensim-dev] Proposal for a cleanup/correction of the region-module system
Hi all, the current system for handling region-modules is slightly broken if you add/remove regions dynamically (or even for region-restarts). I've put up some thoughts at http://opensimulator.org/wiki/New_Region_Modules for discussion. Please answer on the associated 'discussion' page or here on the list. Cheers, Homer ___ Opensim-dev mailing list Opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev
Re: [Opensim-dev] Proposal for a cleanup/correction of the region-module system
ROFL. Oh, it was the 'z' versus the 's' you were discussing.
I thought it was the i versus the I.
From: Dahlia Trimble dahliatrim...@gmail.com
To: opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de
Sent: Saturday, January 24, 2009 4:39:03 PM
Subject: Re: [Opensim-dev] Proposal for a cleanup/correction of the
region-module system
I'm not really a fan of UK zpelling,,, but I imagine people uzing grep could
zearch for initiali
I'll probably continue to uze the UZ englizh zpelling in my code ;)
On Sat, Jan 24, 2009 at 4:32 PM, MW michaelwr...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
I have to say I'm not a big fan of what I've seen of mono.addins so far. Maybe
ExtensionLoader is better, so I do think we should look at that. As I think it
is better to only have one system of loading plugins/modules.
As for initialise vs Initialize, hehe. Well personally I think it should stay
as it is. I really see no reason to change it. I do know of other opensource
projects that use initialise, Ogre being one. And it would be as hard for me to
remember to look/search for Initialize as it would be for you to look for
initialise.
So my vote is a strong keep to UK english or even the mix we have (because some
bits are in US english). But I really don't think people should have to switch
code that is there to US english. Sorry thats a point I do feel quite strongly
on.
But saying that if everyone else voted in favour of that switch I wouldn't
stand in the way. Just would think it was wrong. Any code I write is just
likely to have uk spelling. The same way any code you write is likely to have
US spelling. And opensim has had the UK spelling from the start.
Ryan McDougall sempu...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Jan 24, 2009 at 10:04 PM, Homer Horwitz
wrote:
Hi all,
the current system for handling region-modules is slightly broken if
you add/remove regions dynamically (or even for region-restarts). I've
put up some thoughts at
http://opensimulator.org/wiki/New_Region_Modules for discussion.
Please answer on the associated 'discussion' page or here on the list.
Cheers,
Homer
I have two requests:
1. Can we unify RegionModules with IPlugin system I did a while ago?
This would mean learning and using Mono.Addins, or ExtensionLoader if
that is Mono.Addins's replacement.
Let's just use one system. I am not sure there is a semantic reason
why they should be different.
I didn't touch it myself because I didn't/don't understand the
delicate internals of RegionModules, and was worried about precisely
the sort of issues raised by Homer.
Also, Dispose() can be used in using{} statements. Lets use it, or
have a base class default to Dispose(){ Close(); }.
2. Can we standardize on US English?
I know our illustrious founder MW speaks the Queen's English, which is
the language of the educated; its not really fair to enforce the
linguistic hegemony of the country that spawned GWB and Britany Spears
in our dear pool of sanity and righteousness; but every open source
project I've ever worked on spells it Initialize. Including
Mono.Addins.
You have no idea how times I had to grep my source for Initialize in
order to make it compile. :(
Cheers,
___
Opensim-dev mailing list
Opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de
https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev
___
Opensim-dev mailing list
Opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de
https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev___
Opensim-dev mailing list
Opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de
https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev
Re: [Opensim-dev] Proposal for a cleanup/correction of the region-module system
One other suggested change. Let's remove IConfigSource from the RegionModule Initialise method - and instead make some kind of globally accessible (via Scene?) .Config. The reason for this is twofold: 1. We pass config in multiple times, one per scene. 2. It introduces a dependency on Nini that every region module must fill - this is annoying when a module isn't configurable. Regards, Adam -Original Message- From: opensim-dev-boun...@lists.berlios.de [mailto:opensim-dev- boun...@lists.berlios.de] On Behalf Of Homer Horwitz Sent: Saturday, 24 January 2009 12:04 PM To: opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de Subject: [Opensim-dev] Proposal for a cleanup/correction of the region- module system Hi all, the current system for handling region-modules is slightly broken if you add/remove regions dynamically (or even for region-restarts). I've put up some thoughts at http://opensimulator.org/wiki/New_Region_Modules for discussion. Please answer on the associated 'discussion' page or here on the list. Cheers, Homer ___ Opensim-dev mailing list Opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev ___ Opensim-dev mailing list Opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev
