Re: [Opensim-dev] Deprecate OpenSim.Grid.InventoryServer and OpenSim.Grid.AssetServer?
I'm fine with the name change... it wasn't never meant to last until 1.0, I'm surprised it lasted as long as it did. There are references on the Wiki and one in code. Melanie Justin Clark-Casey wrote: Melanie wrote: Pre 1.0, devs have a tendency to put jokes into software. Most don't last, they're not meant to. Soem do last, even make it into production. They are so hidden, most of the time, that they're actually easter eggs then. B.U.S.T. was the result of a shared joke between myself and AimeeT, with the plugins being implants It wasn't meant to stay and won't stay. I'm sure of that. Unfortunately, whether it's 1960s asbestos roofed huts that my school put up which were still being used in the 1990s, or throwaway names, temporary things tend to last far longer than anyone intends. With something public, I think it would be far easier to rename now than to incur the confusion of renaming shortly before 1.0 when lots of tutorials and wiki pages have already been written. There's an additional issue - if any of us male developers started talking about the necessity of BUST implants we could get accused of sexism, which would be ironic :D If you like, I can replace whatever references already exist with an alternative name next week. ROBUST sounds like a good candidate. ___ 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?
Personally, I think all the anatomic references are completely out of place. Naming things 'BUST' or 'BALLS' is a big joke, is very unprofessional, and is an invitation to the less than tolerant to cause trouble. See, it's happening already. Cheers, James On Sat, Jul 11, 2009 at 6:13 AM, Melanie mela...@t-data.com wrote: Nice one. It's descriptive. +1 from me (covers my B.U.S.T.) Melanie Fly Man wrote: R.O.B.U.S.T sounds more like it 2009/7/9 Stefan Andersson lbs...@hotmail.com: 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/ http://www.zurich.ibm.com/%7Ehud/ ___ 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 sur votre mobile ! ___ 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 -- === http://osgrid.org http://del.icio.us/SPQR http://twitter.com/jstallings2 http://www.linkedin.com/pub/5/770/a49 ___ 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?
Pre 1.0, devs have a tendency to put jokes into software. Most don't last, they're not meant to. Soem do last, even make it into production. They are so hidden, most of the time, that they're actually easter eggs then. B.U.S.T. was the result of a shared joke between myself and AimeeT, with the plugins being implants It wasn't meant to stay and won't stay. I'm sure of that. Melanie James Stallings II wrote: Personally, I think all the anatomic references are completely out of place. Naming things 'BUST' or 'BALLS' is a big joke, is very unprofessional, and is an invitation to the less than tolerant to cause trouble. See, it's happening already. Cheers, James On Sat, Jul 11, 2009 at 6:13 AM, Melanie mela...@t-data.com wrote: Nice one. It's descriptive. +1 from me (covers my B.U.S.T.) Melanie Fly Man wrote: R.O.B.U.S.T sounds more like it 2009/7/9 Stefan Andersson lbs...@hotmail.com: 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/ http://www.zurich.ibm.com/%7Ehud/ ___ 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 sur votre mobile ! ___ 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] 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: opensim
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
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] Deprecate OpenSim.Grid.InventoryServer and OpenSim.Grid.AssetServer?
The CB version we have in trunk is another implementation of similar concepts. It has some hooks for some features, which were never implemented, that the new system doesn't have yet, but the modular system make them entirely possible. At this point, the CB in trunk is stagnant. It's a stripped down version that is already incompatible with upstream CB and essentially unmaintained. I doubt anyone uses it and would think it could also be dropped or moved. Melanie Stefan Andersson wrote: +1 by all means. At the same time, I invite discussion on the cable beach descendant - do you see that this one could be merged into the... bust? Again, big thanks to you and Diva for pulling this off. It's a major step forward indeed! /Stefan -Original Message- From: opensim-dev-boun...@lists.berlios.de [mailto:opensim-dev- boun...@lists.berlios.de] On Behalf Of Melanie Sent: den 7 juli 2009 22:32 To: opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de Subject: [Opensim-dev] Deprecate OpenSim.Grid.InventoryServer and OpenSim.Grid.AssetServer? Hi all, we now have B.U.S.T., which runs the code that was originally in the asset and inventory servers. The asset server is new, from scratch, while the inventory server runs a port of the old code, courtesy of Diva, who translated it to in and out connectors. This means that the old standalone inventory and asset servers are now no longer needed. I propose to move the legacy servers out, either by removing them completely, or by converting them to a forge project. There is no need to have them, since B.U.S.T. can be configured to do just what they did, meaning, it can also run each service in a separate process, if desired. Melanie ___ 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] Deprecate OpenSim.Grid.InventoryServer and OpenSim.Grid.AssetServer?
-1. Lets not remove any existing OpenSim servers. Lets *start* with some documentation so we know what is being proposed. Charles From: Melanie mela...@t-data.com To: opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de Sent: Wednesday, July 8, 2009 7:28:37 AM Subject: Re: [Opensim-dev] Deprecate OpenSim.Grid.InventoryServer and OpenSim.Grid.AssetServer? Documentation is on it's way. Could we get the voting back on track on the question of whether to deprecate/remove the old servers, instead of voting on the obvious need for documentation? Melanie Charles Krinke wrote: +1 also. We need some wiki documentation for BUST to describe how folks can configure and use it. Charles From: Justin Clark-Casey jjusti...@googlemail.com To: opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de Sent: Wednesday, July 8, 2009 3:51:29 AM Subject: Re: [Opensim-dev] Deprecate OpenSim.Grid.InventoryServer and OpenSim.Grid.AssetServer? Cristina Videira Lopes wrote: What is BUST? Also, is there already documentation about the new server shell? We need to document it before retiring the old servers. I'd do it, but I'm completely out of context these days, so it won't happen [on my side] for another couple of weeks. +1. One can't responsibly replace existing documented parts of the infrastructure until there is wiki documentation on the new stuff. ___ 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] Deprecate OpenSim.Grid.InventoryServer and OpenSim.Grid.AssetServer?
if (documentation) return +1; Every page you write on the wiki, god saves a fluffy bunny rabbit.. On Wed, 2009-07-08 at 06:47 -0700, Charles Krinke wrote: +1 also. We need some wiki documentation for BUST to describe how folks can configure and use it. Charles __ From: Justin Clark-Casey jjusti...@googlemail.com To: opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de Sent: Wednesday, July 8, 2009 3:51:29 AM Subject: Re: [Opensim-dev] Deprecate OpenSim.Grid.InventoryServer and OpenSim.Grid.AssetServer? Cristina Videira Lopes wrote: What is BUST? Also, is there already documentation about the new server shell? We need to document it before retiring the old servers. I'd do it, but I'm completely out of context these days, so it won't happen [on my side] for another couple of weeks. +1. One can't responsibly replace existing documented parts of the infrastructure until there is wiki documentation on the new stuff. -- 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
Re: [Opensim-dev] Deprecate OpenSim.Grid.InventoryServer and OpenSim.Grid.AssetServer?
Charles, I said documentation is on it's way. I would like to get people's opinions on moving forward with deprecating the old servers, not people's opinions on the obvious need for documentation. Further, if the old servers are kept, they will have to be maintained indefinitely and so will the protocols, blocking any real progress. So, could you please explain your -1? Regards, Melanie Charles Krinke wrote: -1. Lets not remove any existing OpenSim servers. Lets *start* with some documentation so we know what is being proposed. Charles From: Melanie mela...@t-data.com To: opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de Sent: Wednesday, July 8, 2009 7:28:37 AM Subject: Re: [Opensim-dev] Deprecate OpenSim.Grid.InventoryServer and OpenSim.Grid.AssetServer? Documentation is on it's way. Could we get the voting back on track on the question of whether to deprecate/remove the old servers, instead of voting on the obvious need for documentation? Melanie Charles Krinke wrote: +1 also. We need some wiki documentation for BUST to describe how folks can configure and use it. Charles From: Justin Clark-Casey jjusti...@googlemail.com To: opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de Sent: Wednesday, July 8, 2009 3:51:29 AM Subject: Re: [Opensim-dev] Deprecate OpenSim.Grid.InventoryServer and OpenSim.Grid.AssetServer? Cristina Videira Lopes wrote: What is BUST? Also, is there already documentation about the new server shell? We need to document it before retiring the old servers. I'd do it, but I'm completely out of context these days, so it won't happen [on my side] for another couple of weeks. +1. One can't responsibly replace existing documented parts of the infrastructure until there is wiki documentation on the new stuff. ___ 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] Deprecate OpenSim.Grid.InventoryServer and OpenSim.Grid.AssetServer?
Certainly. You need to explain what it is your are proposing. It is not reasonable to vote +1 on an unknown. So, please describe your vision, in writing, on the wiki, and then folks can feel comfortable about what you are proposing. Lets not get the cart before the horse. Charles From: Melanie mela...@t-data.com To: opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de Sent: Wednesday, July 8, 2009 7:48:08 AM Subject: Re: [Opensim-dev] Deprecate OpenSim.Grid.InventoryServer and OpenSim.Grid.AssetServer? Charles, I said documentation is on it's way. I would like to get people's opinions on moving forward with deprecating the old servers, not people's opinions on the obvious need for documentation. Further, if the old servers are kept, they will have to be maintained indefinitely and so will the protocols, blocking any real progress. So, could you please explain your -1? Regards, Melanie Charles Krinke wrote: -1. Lets not remove any existing OpenSim servers. Lets *start* with some documentation so we know what is being proposed. Charles From: Melanie mela...@t-data.com To: opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de Sent: Wednesday, July 8, 2009 7:28:37 AM Subject: Re: [Opensim-dev] Deprecate OpenSim.Grid.InventoryServer and OpenSim.Grid.AssetServer? Documentation is on it's way. Could we get the voting back on track on the question of whether to deprecate/remove the old servers, instead of voting on the obvious need for documentation? Melanie Charles Krinke wrote: +1 also. We need some wiki documentation for BUST to describe how folks can configure and use it. Charles From: Justin Clark-Casey jjusti...@googlemail.com To: opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de Sent: Wednesday, July 8, 2009 3:51:29 AM Subject: Re: [Opensim-dev] Deprecate OpenSim.Grid.InventoryServer and OpenSim.Grid.AssetServer? Cristina Videira Lopes wrote: What is BUST? Also, is there already documentation about the new server shell? We need to document it before retiring the old servers. I'd do it, but I'm completely out of context these days, so it won't happen [on my side] for another couple of weeks. +1. One can't responsibly replace existing documented parts of the infrastructure until there is wiki documentation on the new stuff. ___ 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] Deprecate OpenSim.Grid.InventoryServer and OpenSim.Grid.AssetServer?
What is proposed is actually already been discussed and well underway. It's already runnable, too. This is not about introducing the new servers, that has already happened through Diva's and my work, it's about removing the old. I only asked about removing the old servers, and I said documentation on the new ones is underway. What I would like to see is agreement _in principle_ on removing the old cruft. Melanie Charles Krinke wrote: Certainly. You need to explain what it is your are proposing. It is not reasonable to vote +1 on an unknown. So, please describe your vision, in writing, on the wiki, and then folks can feel comfortable about what you are proposing. Lets not get the cart before the horse. Charles From: Melanie mela...@t-data.com To: opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de Sent: Wednesday, July 8, 2009 7:48:08 AM Subject: Re: [Opensim-dev] Deprecate OpenSim.Grid.InventoryServer and OpenSim.Grid.AssetServer? Charles, I said documentation is on it's way. I would like to get people's opinions on moving forward with deprecating the old servers, not people's opinions on the obvious need for documentation. Further, if the old servers are kept, they will have to be maintained indefinitely and so will the protocols, blocking any real progress. So, could you please explain your -1? Regards, Melanie Charles Krinke wrote: -1. Lets not remove any existing OpenSim servers. Lets *start* with some documentation so we know what is being proposed. Charles From: Melanie mela...@t-data.com To: opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de Sent: Wednesday, July 8, 2009 7:28:37 AM Subject: Re: [Opensim-dev] Deprecate OpenSim.Grid.InventoryServer and OpenSim.Grid.AssetServer? Documentation is on it's way. Could we get the voting back on track on the question of whether to deprecate/remove the old servers, instead of voting on the obvious need for documentation? Melanie Charles Krinke wrote: +1 also. We need some wiki documentation for BUST to describe how folks can configure and use it. Charles From: Justin Clark-Casey jjusti...@googlemail.com To: opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de Sent: Wednesday, July 8, 2009 3:51:29 AM Subject: Re: [Opensim-dev] Deprecate OpenSim.Grid.InventoryServer and OpenSim.Grid.AssetServer? Cristina Videira Lopes wrote: What is BUST? Also, is there already documentation about the new server shell? We need to document it before retiring the old servers. I'd do it, but I'm completely out of context these days, so it won't happen [on my side] for another couple of weeks. +1. One can't responsibly replace existing documented parts of the infrastructure until there is wiki documentation on the new stuff. ___ 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 ___ 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?
Information on the B.U.S.T. server and how to set up a grid with it is at http://opensimulator.org/wiki/Configuration. The previous documentation has been moved to http://opensimulator.org/wiki/LegacyServers and linked from the Configuration page Melanie Melanie wrote: What is proposed is actually already been discussed and well underway. It's already runnable, too. This is not about introducing the new servers, that has already happened through Diva's and my work, it's about removing the old. I only asked about removing the old servers, and I said documentation on the new ones is underway. What I would like to see is agreement _in principle_ on removing the old cruft. Melanie Charles Krinke wrote: Certainly. You need to explain what it is your are proposing. It is not reasonable to vote +1 on an unknown. So, please describe your vision, in writing, on the wiki, and then folks can feel comfortable about what you are proposing. Lets not get the cart before the horse. Charles From: Melanie mela...@t-data.com To: opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de Sent: Wednesday, July 8, 2009 7:48:08 AM Subject: Re: [Opensim-dev] Deprecate OpenSim.Grid.InventoryServer and OpenSim.Grid.AssetServer? Charles, I said documentation is on it's way. I would like to get people's opinions on moving forward with deprecating the old servers, not people's opinions on the obvious need for documentation. Further, if the old servers are kept, they will have to be maintained indefinitely and so will the protocols, blocking any real progress. So, could you please explain your -1? Regards, Melanie Charles Krinke wrote: -1. Lets not remove any existing OpenSim servers. Lets *start* with some documentation so we know what is being proposed. Charles From: Melanie mela...@t-data.com To: opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de Sent: Wednesday, July 8, 2009 7:28:37 AM Subject: Re: [Opensim-dev] Deprecate OpenSim.Grid.InventoryServer and OpenSim.Grid.AssetServer? Documentation is on it's way. Could we get the voting back on track on the question of whether to deprecate/remove the old servers, instead of voting on the obvious need for documentation? Melanie Charles Krinke wrote: +1 also. We need some wiki documentation for BUST to describe how folks can configure and use it. Charles From: Justin Clark-Casey jjusti...@googlemail.com To: opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de Sent: Wednesday, July 8, 2009 3:51:29 AM Subject: Re: [Opensim-dev] Deprecate OpenSim.Grid.InventoryServer and OpenSim.Grid.AssetServer? Cristina Videira Lopes wrote: What is BUST? Also, is there already documentation about the new server shell? We need to document it before retiring the old servers. I'd do it, but I'm completely out of context these days, so it won't happen [on my side] for another couple of weeks. +1. One can't responsibly replace existing documented parts of the infrastructure until there is wiki documentation on the new stuff. ___ 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 ___ 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?
B.U.S.T. is Basic Universal Server Technology. The prompt can be changed in the configuration file, though, for those without a sense of humor. I fully expect things to get renamed before 1.0. On the other hand, the server is named OpenSim.Server.exe, no body parts there! As soon as connectors are available for the other services, it will be able to run them. Part of this is getting the old servers out of the way, since the new servers use different web protocols and keeping compatibility with the old servers will not be possible. At this point, the presence of the old servers blocks evolution. Melanie Sean Dague wrote: Melanie wrote: The CB version we have in trunk is another implementation of similar concepts. It has some hooks for some features, which were never implemented, that the new system doesn't have yet, but the modular system make them entirely possible. At this point, the CB in trunk is stagnant. It's a stripped down version that is already incompatible with upstream CB and essentially unmaintained. I doubt anyone uses it and would think it could also be dropped or moved. I'm definitely in favor of getting stuff out of trunk that we think isn't getting used at all, eliminates confusion in the code. Can we come up with a name better than BUST though, as that doesn't really mean anything to me? :) Unrelated question, is it possible to run all the grid services (not just inv asset) via that 1 process? That would simplify things for smaller ( 50 region) grids that probably put all those on the same machine anyway. -Sean ___ 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?
I would also seem reasonable to me that some smaller grids test the 'BUST' notion and report success before we move forward in considering in obsoleting our existing grid server executables. Charles From: Sean Dague sda...@gmail.com To: opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de Sent: Wednesday, July 8, 2009 8:04:27 AM Subject: Re: [Opensim-dev] Deprecate OpenSim.Grid.InventoryServer and OpenSim.Grid.AssetServer? Melanie wrote: The CB version we have in trunk is another implementation of similar concepts. It has some hooks for some features, which were never implemented, that the new system doesn't have yet, but the modular system make them entirely possible. At this point, the CB in trunk is stagnant. It's a stripped down version that is already incompatible with upstream CB and essentially unmaintained. I doubt anyone uses it and would think it could also be dropped or moved. I'm definitely in favor of getting stuff out of trunk that we think isn't getting used at all, eliminates confusion in the code. Can we come up with a name better than BUST though, as that doesn't really mean anything to me? :) Unrelated question, is it possible to run all the grid services (not just inv asset) via that 1 process? That would simplify things for smaller ( 50 region) grids that probably put all those on the same machine anyway. -Sean -- __ Sean Dague Mid-Hudson Valley sda...@gmail.com Linux Users Group http://dague.nethttp://mhvlug.org There is no silver bullet. Plus, werewolves make better neighbors than zombies, and they tend to keep the vampire population down. _ 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?
Well, this may or may not be, Melanie. But, I would feel a whole lot more comfortable about the whole proposal *after* at least two different groups report success in configuring BUST and that it is not busted. At that point, we need enough clear and concise documentation on the wiki to allow others running grids to be able to change. After a half dozen different grids have adopted the notion of BUST and determined it is not busted, then we could consider deprecating our existing UGAIM. Charles From: Melanie mela...@t-data.com To: opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de Sent: Wednesday, July 8, 2009 8:13:04 AM Subject: Re: [Opensim-dev] Deprecate OpenSim.Grid.InventoryServer and OpenSim.Grid.AssetServer? B.U.S.T. is Basic Universal Server Technology. The prompt can be changed in the configuration file, though, for those without a sense of humor. I fully expect things to get renamed before 1.0. On the other hand, the server is named OpenSim.Server.exe, no body parts there! As soon as connectors are available for the other services, it will be able to run them. Part of this is getting the old servers out of the way, since the new servers use different web protocols and keeping compatibility with the old servers will not be possible. At this point, the presence of the old servers blocks evolution. Melanie Sean Dague wrote: Melanie wrote: The CB version we have in trunk is another implementation of similar concepts. It has some hooks for some features, which were never implemented, that the new system doesn't have yet, but the modular system make them entirely possible. At this point, the CB in trunk is stagnant. It's a stripped down version that is already incompatible with upstream CB and essentially unmaintained. I doubt anyone uses it and would think it could also be dropped or moved. I'm definitely in favor of getting stuff out of trunk that we think isn't getting used at all, eliminates confusion in the code. Can we come up with a name better than BUST though, as that doesn't really mean anything to me? :) Unrelated question, is it possible to run all the grid services (not just inv asset) via that 1 process? That would simplify things for smaller ( 50 region) grids that probably put all those on the same machine anyway. -Sean ___ 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] Deprecate OpenSim.Grid.InventoryServer and OpenSim.Grid.AssetServer?
for those clicking this link you will get a empty page, be sure to at the DOT to the end. ..!!! On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 8:44 AM, Melanie mela...@t-data.com wrote: Config file docs for it: http://opensimulator.org/wiki/B.U.S.T. Melanie BlueWall Slade wrote: ++ MW, sounds like a sane path to follow. Thanks! BlueWall On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 11:25 AM, MW michaelwr...@yahoo.co.uk wrote: +1 , we need these new servers tested in production use by multiple people/grids for a reasonable lenght of time. Before we actually remove the old servers from SVN. Once they have been tested and there is full documentation then I'm +1 to removing the old ones. Maybe a starting point would be to set up the configs so by default everything was configured for the new servers. I also would rather a different name than BUST, and also before any protocol changes are done, see full documentation about the plans. We have just gone through a extended period of a lot of refactoring and rapid changes. I think now is the time to slow the changes down a bit and take a bit of time to reflect on things and test them and get any new bugs out of the system. --- On *Wed, 8/7/09, Charles Krinke c...@pacbell.net* wrote: From: Charles Krinke c...@pacbell.net Subject: Re: [Opensim-dev] Deprecate OpenSim.Grid.InventoryServer and OpenSim.Grid.AssetServer? To: opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de Date: Wednesday, 8 July, 2009, 4:18 PM Well, this may or may not be, Melanie. But, I would feel a whole lot more comfortable about the whole proposal *after* at least two different groups report success in configuring BUST and that it is not busted. At that point, we need enough clear and concise documentation on the wiki to allow others running grids to be able to change. After a half dozen different grids have adopted the notion of BUST and determined it is not busted, then we could consider deprecating our existing UGAIM. Charles -- *From:* Melanie mela...@t-data.com *To:* opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de *Sent:* Wednesday, July 8, 2009 8:13:04 AM *Subject:* Re: [Opensim-dev] Deprecate OpenSim.Grid.InventoryServer and OpenSim.Grid.AssetServer? B.U.S.T. is Basic Universal Server Technology. The prompt can be changed in the configuration file, though, for those without a sense of humor. I fully expect things to get renamed before 1.0. On the other hand, the server is named OpenSim.Server.exe, no body parts there! As soon as connectors are available for the other services, it will be able to run them. Part of this is getting the old servers out of the way, since the new servers use different web protocols and keeping compatibility with the old servers will not be possible. At this point, the presence of the old servers blocks evolution. Melanie Sean Dague wrote: Melanie wrote: The CB version we have in trunk is another implementation of similar concepts. It has some hooks for some features, which were never implemented, that the new system doesn't have yet, but the modular system make them entirely possible. At this point, the CB in trunk is stagnant. It's a stripped down version that is already incompatible with upstream CB and essentially unmaintained. I doubt anyone uses it and would think it could also be dropped or moved. I'm definitely in favor of getting stuff out of trunk that we think isn't getting used at all, eliminates confusion in the code. Can we come up with a name better than BUST though, as that doesn't really mean anything to me? :) Unrelated question, is it possible to run all the grid services (not just inv asset) via that 1 process? That would simplify things for smaller ( 50 region) grids that probably put all those on the same machine anyway. -Sean ___ Opensim-dev mailing list Opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de http://mc/compose?to=opensim-...@lists.berlios.de https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev ___ Opensim-dev mailing list Opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de http://mc/compose?to=opensim-...@lists.berlios.de https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev -Inline Attachment Follows- ___ Opensim-dev mailing list Opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de http://mc/compose?to=opensim-...@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?
Mike Dickson wrote: On Wed, 2009-07-08 at 14:48 +, Melanie wrote: Charles, I said documentation is on it's way. I would like to get people's opinions on moving forward with deprecating the old servers, not people's opinions on the obvious need for documentation. Further, if the old servers are kept, they will have to be maintained indefinitely and so will the protocols, blocking any real progress. So, could you please explain your -1? You mentioned (and Justin I think asked for details) on protocols changing. Which protocols are you refering to (inter-server protocol, client-server protocol)? Yes, you (Melanie) have mentioned 'new' protocols but afaik this is the first I've heard of this. Changing OGS1 protocols is a big upheaval and should be properly laid out and peer reviewed before work starts. not after or during. Going down the wrong path now will be expensive later on. If you can point me towards existing documentation on this (if it's part of BUST) that would be appreciated. Thankyou for writing the existing documentation on BUST. I'm sure if the new technology is well received then we can deprecate and remove the old servers. I also don't like the name 'BUST'. As we've already *very extensively seen*, we should not assume a sense of humour on the part of others. A compromise would be to change the server prompt. In general I'm +1 for this since I'd really like to see the core settle down into a stable state and getting the refactoring behind us is a prereq. for that. I certainly understand the desire for doco so people know what they're being asked for feedback on however. Absolutely. Asking for a general vote on progress is like proposing a vote on motherhood and apple pie. We can only make meaningful votes on specific proposals. I'm actually now confused on whether you're asking for a vote on eventually deprecating the old servers (but not before another vote) or on changing basic grid protocols. I assume it is the former rather than the latter. -- 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] Deprecate OpenSim.Grid.InventoryServer and OpenSim.Grid.AssetServer?
Melanie: I think the key here is 'evolution' and not 'revolution'. We have sufficient momentum and sufficient users with OpenSim that we need to go out of our way to provide and evolutionary path and that of necessity must include sufficient documentation to allow our users to use OpenSim with a reasonable effort. As we evolve, whether we go away from the UGAIM to BUST or something else has yet to be determined, and it will be determined by the users as they adopt one or the other. So, please figure out how to get two grids using BUST and report back on their progress. Given that, please figure out how to get a half-a-dozen early adopters to test this new logic. By doing that, the 'evolution' will take care of itself and we will have a much better product. Charles From: Justin Clark-Casey jjusti...@googlemail.com To: opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de Sent: Wednesday, July 8, 2009 9:26:28 AM Subject: Re: [Opensim-dev] Deprecate OpenSim.Grid.InventoryServer and OpenSim.Grid.AssetServer? Mike Dickson wrote: On Wed, 2009-07-08 at 14:48 +, Melanie wrote: Charles, I said documentation is on it's way. I would like to get people's opinions on moving forward with deprecating the old servers, not people's opinions on the obvious need for documentation. Further, if the old servers are kept, they will have to be maintained indefinitely and so will the protocols, blocking any real progress. So, could you please explain your -1? You mentioned (and Justin I think asked for details) on protocols changing. Which protocols are you refering to (inter-server protocol, client-server protocol)? Yes, you (Melanie) have mentioned 'new' protocols but afaik this is the first I've heard of this. Changing OGS1 protocols is a big upheaval and should be properly laid out and peer reviewed before work starts. not after or during. Going down the wrong path now will be expensive later on. If you can point me towards existing documentation on this (if it's part of BUST) that would be appreciated. Thankyou for writing the existing documentation on BUST. I'm sure if the new technology is well received then we can deprecate and remove the old servers. I also don't like the name 'BUST'. As we've already *very extensively seen*, we should not assume a sense of humour on the part of others. A compromise would be to change the server prompt. In general I'm +1 for this since I'd really like to see the core settle down into a stable state and getting the refactoring behind us is a prereq. for that. I certainly understand the desire for doco so people know what they're being asked for feedback on however. Absolutely. Asking for a general vote on progress is like proposing a vote on motherhood and apple pie. We can only make meaningful votes on specific proposals. I'm actually now confused on whether you're asking for a vote on eventually deprecating the old servers (but not before another vote) or on changing basic grid protocols. I assume it is the former rather than the latter. -- 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
Re: [Opensim-dev] Deprecate OpenSim.Grid.InventoryServer and OpenSim.Grid.AssetServer?
We will be pleased to test BUST without the fears to get Busted... Sacha Le 8 juil. 09 à 18:33, Charles Krinke a écrit : Melanie: I think the key here is 'evolution' and not 'revolution'. We have sufficient momentum and sufficient users with OpenSim that we need to go out of our way to provide and evolutionary path and that of necessity must include sufficient documentation to allow our users to use OpenSim with a reasonable effort. As we evolve, whether we go away from the UGAIM to BUST or something else has yet to be determined, and it will be determined by the users as they adopt one or the other. So, please figure out how to get two grids using BUST and report back on their progress. Given that, please figure out how to get a half-a-dozen early adopters to test this new logic. By doing that, the 'evolution' will take care of itself and we will have a much better product. Charles From: Justin Clark-Casey jjusti...@googlemail.com To: opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de Sent: Wednesday, July 8, 2009 9:26:28 AM Subject: Re: [Opensim-dev] Deprecate OpenSim.Grid.InventoryServer and OpenSim.Grid.AssetServer? Mike Dickson wrote: On Wed, 2009-07-08 at 14:48 +, Melanie wrote: Charles, I said documentation is on it's way. I would like to get people's opinions on moving forward with deprecating the old servers, not people's opinions on the obvious need for documentation. Further, if the old servers are kept, they will have to be maintained indefinitely and so will the protocols, blocking any real progress. So, could you please explain your -1? You mentioned (and Justin I think asked for details) on protocols changing. Which protocols are you refering to (inter-server protocol, client- server protocol)? Yes, you (Melanie) have mentioned 'new' protocols but afaik this is the first I've heard of this. Changing OGS1 protocols is a big upheaval and should be properly laid out and peer reviewed before work starts. not after or during. Going down the wrong path now will be expensive later on. If you can point me towards existing documentation on this (if it's part of BUST) that would be appreciated. Thankyou for writing the existing documentation on BUST. I'm sure if the new technology is well received then we can deprecate and remove the old servers. I also don't like the name 'BUST'. As we've already *very extensively seen*, we should not assume a sense of humour on the part of others. A compromise would be to change the server prompt. In general I'm +1 for this since I'd really like to see the core settle down into a stable state and getting the refactoring behind us is a prereq. for that. I certainly understand the desire for doco so people know what they're being asked for feedback on however. Absolutely. Asking for a general vote on progress is like proposing a vote on motherhood and apple pie. We can only make meaningful votes on specific proposals. I'm actually now confused on whether you're asking for a vote on eventually deprecating the old servers (but not before another vote) or on changing basic grid protocols. I assume it is the former rather than the latter. -- 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 Sacha Magne sacha.ma...@k-grid.com K-Grid, the Kool grid for the Kool Kats http://K-grid.com ___ 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?
Sacha: That would be uber-cool if you could test the BUST notions and report back your opinion. It would allow a number of folks to feel more comfortable about these proposed changes. Thank you kindly. Charles From: Sacha Magne sacha.ma...@k-grid.com To: opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de Sent: Wednesday, July 8, 2009 9:43:03 AM Subject: Re: [Opensim-dev] Deprecate OpenSim.Grid.InventoryServer and OpenSim.Grid.AssetServer? We will be pleased to test BUST without the fears to get Busted... Sacha Le 8 juil. 09 à 18:33, Charles Krinke a écrit : Melanie: I think the key here is 'evolution' and not 'revolution'. We have sufficient momentum and sufficient users with OpenSim that we need to go out of our way to provide and evolutionary path and that of necessity must include sufficient documentation to allow our users to use OpenSim with a reasonable effort. As we evolve, whether we go away from the UGAIM to BUST or something else has yet to be determined, and it will be determined by the users as they adopt one or the other. So, please figure out how to get two grids using BUST and report back on their progress. Given that, please figure out how to get a half-a-dozen early adopters to test this new logic. By doing that, the 'evolution' will take care of itself and we will have a much better product. Charles From: Justin Clark-Casey jjusti...@googlemail.com To: opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de Sent: Wednesday, July 8, 2009 9:26:28 AM Subject: Re: [Opensim-dev] Deprecate OpenSim.Grid.InventoryServer and OpenSim.Grid.AssetServer? Mike Dickson wrote: On Wed, 2009-07-08 at 14:48 +, Melanie wrote: Charles, I said documentation is on it's way. I would like to get people's opinions on moving forward with deprecating the old servers, not people's opinions on the obvious need for documentation. Further, if the old servers are kept, they will have to be maintained indefinitely and so will the protocols, blocking any real progress. So, could you please explain your -1? You mentioned (and Justin I think asked for details) on protocols changing. Which protocols are you refering to (inter-server protocol, client-server protocol)? Yes, you (Melanie) have mentioned 'new' protocols but afaik this is the first I've heard of this. Changing OGS1 protocols is a big upheaval and should be properly laid out and peer reviewed before work starts. not after or during. Going down the wrong path now will be expensive later on. If you can point me towards existing documentation on this (if it's part of BUST) that would be appreciated. Thankyou for writing the existing documentation on BUST. I'm sure if the new technology is well received then we can deprecate and remove the old servers. I also don't like the name 'BUST'. As we've already *very extensively seen*, we should not assume a sense of humour on the part of others. A compromise would be to change the server prompt. In general I'm +1 for this since I'd really like to see the core settle down into a stable state and getting the refactoring behind us is a prereq. for that. I certainly understand the desire for doco so people know what they're being asked for feedback on however. Absolutely. Asking for a general vote on progress is like proposing a vote on motherhood and apple pie. We can only make meaningful votes on specific proposals. I'm actually now confused on whether you're asking for a vote on eventually deprecating the old servers (but not before another vote) or on changing basic grid protocols. I assume it is the former rather than the latter. -- 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 Sacha Magne sacha.ma...@k-grid.com K-Grid, the Kool grid for the Kool Kats http://K-grid.com___ 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?
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? ~Sean -- Sean Hennessee UC Irvine ... . .- -. / . -. -. . ... ... . . ___ 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?
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
Re: [Opensim-dev] Deprecate OpenSim.Grid.InventoryServer and OpenSim.Grid.AssetServer?
Not bad, not bad at all. 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? ~Sean ___ 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?
Melanie wrote: Hi, this has been spoken about extensively, mostly on IRC. It is NOT about _changing_ OGS1. It's about replacing it. fyi, as has been said many times in the past, speaking about something on IRC does _not_ mean that everybody knows about it. Peer review must occur either via mailing list or around a wiki page, at the very least. Wiki page is preferable because they provide a summarized, easily understood and referenced proposal. Mailing lists often provide only an incremental picture. Discussing a large proposal only (or largely) on IRC is not valid and can get overturned or questioned. OGS1 is a monolithic juggernaut that stubbornly resists evolutionary pressures. It can't be updates any more than the dinosaurs could be. The smaller, faster mammals (services) will push it out of the picture. This has already happened for assets and inventory. The basic structure is as Diva describes: IN_Connector - Service - Out_Connector where each is optional. So, a region will normally load either a service (standalone mode) or a out connector, which will then connect it to an in connector on a server that then loads the service. The interesting part is that the system of connectors allows up to design more sane wire protocols - but not if we have legacy servers around that don't subscribe to the connectors system and lock the present wire protocol in place. So, as B.U.S.T. gains implants for a protocol (using a compatible wire protocol plugin at first), the corresponding legacy server needs to go. Then new protocol plugins can be developed that are more sane, allow more functionality, have more security, or whatever other improvements. The servers will be able to follow such protocol changes in mix match fashion by using appropriate connectors. I don't see any problems with this, providing its documented (as you have now done) and reasonably extensively tested by others (which as far as I can tell is not the case yet, hence the concerns of Charles and others). 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. Melanie Justin Clark-Casey wrote: Mike Dickson wrote: On Wed, 2009-07-08 at 14:48 +, Melanie wrote: Charles, I said documentation is on it's way. I would like to get people's opinions on moving forward with deprecating the old servers, not people's opinions on the obvious need for documentation. Further, if the old servers are kept, they will have to be maintained indefinitely and so will the protocols, blocking any real progress. So, could you please explain your -1? You mentioned (and Justin I think asked for details) on protocols changing. Which protocols are you refering to (inter-server protocol, client-server protocol)? Yes, you (Melanie) have mentioned 'new' protocols but afaik this is the first I've heard of this. Changing OGS1 protocols is a big upheaval and should be properly laid out and peer reviewed before work starts. not after or during. Going down the wrong path now will be expensive later on. If you can point me towards existing documentation on this (if it's part of BUST) that would be appreciated. Thankyou for writing the existing documentation on BUST. I'm sure if the new technology is well received then we can deprecate and remove the old servers. I also don't like the name 'BUST'. As we've already *very extensively seen*, we should not assume a sense of humour on the part of others. A compromise would be to change the server prompt. In general I'm +1 for this since I'd really like to see the core settle down into a stable state and getting the refactoring behind us is a prereq. for that. I certainly understand the desire for doco so people know what they're being asked for feedback on however. Absolutely. Asking for a general vote on progress is like proposing a vote on motherhood and apple pie. We can only make meaningful votes on specific proposals. I'm actually now confused on whether you're asking for a vote on eventually deprecating the old servers (but not before another vote) or on changing basic grid protocols. I assume it is the former rather than the latter. ___ 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] Deprecate OpenSim.Grid.InventoryServer and OpenSim.Grid.AssetServer?
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 Opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev
Re: [Opensim-dev] Deprecate OpenSim.Grid.InventoryServer and OpenSim.Grid.AssetServer?
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 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, 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 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?
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: opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de 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 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, 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 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] 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: opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de 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 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, 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 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
Re: [Opensim-dev] Deprecate OpenSim.Grid.InventoryServer and OpenSim.Grid.AssetServer?
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: opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de 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 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, 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 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 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: opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de 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 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, 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 Opensim
Re: [Opensim-dev] Deprecate OpenSim.Grid.InventoryServer and OpenSim.Grid.AssetServer?
I'm glad someone besides me said that... Mike On Wed, 2009-07-08 at 22:26 +, Gryc Ueusp wrote: This is what branches are for. Melanie wrote: This can not be reasonably done on the forge.. Melanie ___ 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?
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: opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de 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 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, 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
Re: [Opensim-dev] Deprecate OpenSim.Grid.InventoryServer and OpenSim.Grid.AssetServer?
Well my vote is that the new protocol is documented before it goes into trunk. There is no reason that the protocol can't be designed before it is implemented. But anyway if its not documented then my vote would be -1 on it going into trunk. Even if it was a optional extra, it would still lead to confusion and disruption among other things. Something as big as a new protocol does need some design rather than just flying into implementing it and seeing how it turns out. So I believe it is either designed and that plan is published on the mailing list/wiki and then after a review, work can start on implementing it or it goes into a branch and then after it is finished, it can be documented and then a review of it is carried out before it is decided if it goes into trunk. --- 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: opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de 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 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, 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
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: opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de 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 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, 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
Re: [Opensim-dev] Deprecate OpenSim.Grid.InventoryServer and OpenSim.Grid.AssetServer?
Firstly, the acclaim is for the connector/services architecture. Not any new protocol. There isn't one yet. Secondly, this can't be developed on a drawing board. It needs community testing and input. It needs to grow. Asking for full documentation ahead of implementation is the same as killing it. Thirdly, it's not my plan in my head. It's actually a collaboration between myself and Diva that has been going on for quite some time already. Why is this being sidetracked into discussing things that haven't happened, aren't even close to happening? The question was simple (and sorry for the emphasis, but I think it's needed): IS THERE A BASIC UNDERSTANDING AND AGREEMENT ABOUT REMOVING THE OLD STYLE, MONOLITHIC, SERVERS IF AND WHEN A SUITABLE AND COMPATIBLE REPLACEMENT IS READY? That was all I asked for. Nothing more. Nothing less. Melanie MW wrote: 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: opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de 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
Re: [Opensim-dev] Deprecate OpenSim.Grid.InventoryServer and OpenSim.Grid.AssetServer?
Hi, MW wrote: Well my vote is that the new protocol is documented before it goes into trunk. There is no reason that the protocol can't be designed before it is implemented. The specification itself is a moving target that needs commnity input. But anyway if its not documented then my vote would be -1 on it going into trunk. Even if it was a optional extra, it would still lead to confusion and disruption among other things. More disruptive things have been done to trun routinely. What happened to trunk is upoosed to be broken? This won't even break trunk. Something as big as a new protocol does need some design rather than just flying into implementing it and seeing how it turns out. I think that is precisely the wrong way. In my experience, drawing board work leads to overengineering. Melanie ___ Opensim-dev mailing list Opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev
[Opensim-dev] Deprecate OpenSim.Grid.InventoryServer and OpenSim.Grid.AssetServer?
Hi all, we now have B.U.S.T., which runs the code that was originally in the asset and inventory servers. The asset server is new, from scratch, while the inventory server runs a port of the old code, courtesy of Diva, who translated it to in and out connectors. This means that the old standalone inventory and asset servers are now no longer needed. I propose to move the legacy servers out, either by removing them completely, or by converting them to a forge project. There is no need to have them, since B.U.S.T. can be configured to do just what they did, meaning, it can also run each service in a separate process, if desired. Melanie ___ 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?
At this time, yes. But changes are planned as we are moving to more sane protocols. Melanie Frisby, Adam wrote: The protocols remain the same, correct? Adam -Original Message- From: opensim-dev-boun...@lists.berlios.de [mailto:opensim-dev- boun...@lists.berlios.de] On Behalf Of Melanie Sent: Tuesday, 7 July 2009 1:32 PM To: opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de Subject: [Opensim-dev] Deprecate OpenSim.Grid.InventoryServer and OpenSim.Grid.AssetServer? Hi all, we now have B.U.S.T., which runs the code that was originally in the asset and inventory servers. The asset server is new, from scratch, while the inventory server runs a port of the old code, courtesy of Diva, who translated it to in and out connectors. This means that the old standalone inventory and asset servers are now no longer needed. I propose to move the legacy servers out, either by removing them completely, or by converting them to a forge project. There is no need to have them, since B.U.S.T. can be configured to do just what they did, meaning, it can also run each service in a separate process, if desired. Melanie ___ 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
