Re: [Opensim-dev] Deprecate OpenSim.Grid.InventoryServer and OpenSim.Grid.AssetServer?
Not to butt in but, I kind of like the name B.U.S.T. It has sort of a maternal ring to it which is suiting to a core set of servers. But then again, I'm also the guy that came up with such weird acronyms as QUADRES for Quick Usable and Dirty Report Execution System. :P Thanks, :) - John Toni Alatalo wrote: On Jul 8, 2009, at 7:51 PM, Sean Hennessee wrote: MW wrote: I also would rather a different name than BUST, and also before any How about BOSS? Basic Open Simulator Servers? nice acronym - perhaps too JBoss-y a name though, and it being also a server framework (the open source j2ee thing) is a little bit close. i don't mind BUST, but it's not a huge matter i think anyways. ~Sean ~Toni ___ 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] Deprecate OpenSim.Grid.InventoryServer and OpenSim.Grid.AssetServer?
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: opensim-dev-boun...@lists.berlios.de [mailto:opensim-dev-boun...@lists.berlios.de] On Behalf Of MW Sent: den 9 juli 2009 02:43 To: opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de 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 mela...@t-data.com wrote: From: Melanie mela...@t-data.com Subject: Re: [Opensim-dev] Deprecate OpenSim.Grid.InventoryServer and OpenSim.Grid.AssetServer? To: opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de 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 mela...@t-data.com To: opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de 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 mela...@t-data.com To:
Re: [Opensim-dev] Deprecate OpenSim.Grid.InventoryServer and OpenSim.Grid.AssetServer?
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: opensim-dev-boun...@lists.berlios.de [mailto:opensim-dev-boun...@lists.berlios.de] On Behalf Of MW Sent: den 9 juli 2009 02:43 To: opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de 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 mela...@t-data.com wrote: From: Melanie mela...@t-data.com Subject: Re: [Opensim-dev] Deprecate OpenSim.Grid.InventoryServer and OpenSim.Grid.AssetServer? To: opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de 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 mela...@t-data.com To: opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de 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
Re: [Opensim-dev] Deprecate OpenSim.Grid.InventoryServer and OpenSim.Grid.AssetServer?
How about Redesigned OpenSim Basic Universal Server Technology R.O.B.U.S.T? ;) Btw, You will hear no end of references to LoA from me: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u1jzVJjk32E /Stefan From: opensim-dev-boun...@lists.berlios.de [mailto:opensim-dev-boun...@lists.berlios.de] On Behalf Of Laurent B. Sent: den 9 juli 2009 14:01 To: opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de Subject: Re: [Opensim-dev] Deprecate OpenSim.Grid.InventoryServer and OpenSim.Grid.AssetServer? +1 for B.U.S.T : in B.U.S.T we trust ! Laurent Date: Thu, 9 Jul 2009 09:03:58 +0200 From: drscofi...@xyzzyxyzzy.net To: opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de Subject: Re: [Opensim-dev] Deprecate OpenSim.Grid.InventoryServer and OpenSim.Grid.AssetServer? Sean Hennessee wrote: MW wrote: I also would rather a different name than BUST, and also before any protocol changes are done, see full documentation about the plans. How about BOSS? Basic Open Simulator Servers? +1 -- 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 _ Discutez sur Messenger où que vous soyez ! Mettez Messenger http://www.messengersurvotremobile.com/ sur votre mobile ! ___ Opensim-dev mailing list Opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev
Re: [Opensim-dev] Visual Studio 2005 support
+1, seems reasonable to me. Charles From: Teravus Ovares tera...@gmail.com To: opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de Sent: Thursday, July 9, 2009 1:01:35 PM Subject: Re: [Opensim-dev] Visual Studio 2005 support It's been long enough, I think :) Regards Teravus On Thu, Jul 9, 2009 at 3:51 PM, Justin Clark-Caseyjjusti...@googlemail.com wrote: Jeff Ames wrote: Hello, Back in April there was a proposal to drop support for VS 2005 after 0.6.5. Since we're now at 0.6.6, can we go ahead and do the runprebuild.bat switch, and remove the proposal from the wiki? I think so. I'm sure this was mentioned before in this list and nobody objected to the change. -- 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 ___ 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] Visual Studio 2005 support
Hello, Since VS2005 is no longer supported post-0.6.5, as of r10003, runprebuild.bat defaults to targetting VS2008 rather than VS2005. There is no longer a separate runprebuild2008.bat. Jeff ___ Opensim-dev mailing list Opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev
Re: [Opensim-dev] Visual Studio 2005 support
+1 From: opensim-dev-boun...@lists.berlios.de [mailto:opensim-dev-boun...@lists.berlios.de] On Behalf Of Charles Krinke Sent: den 9 juli 2009 22:18 To: opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de Subject: Re: [Opensim-dev] Visual Studio 2005 support +1, seems reasonable to me. Charles _ From: Teravus Ovares tera...@gmail.com To: opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de Sent: Thursday, July 9, 2009 1:01:35 PM Subject: Re: [Opensim-dev] Visual Studio 2005 support It's been long enough, I think :) Regards Teravus On Thu, Jul 9, 2009 at 3:51 PM, Justin Clark-Caseyjjusti...@googlemail.com wrote: Jeff Ames wrote: Hello, Back in April there was a proposal to drop support for VS 2005 after 0.6.5. Since we're now at 0.6.6, can we go ahead and do the runprebuild.bat switch, and remove the proposal from the wiki? I think so. I'm sure this was mentioned before in this list and nobody objected to the change. -- 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 ___ 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
