Actaully, how would y'all feel about a simple abstraction of our own;
Making an OpenSim.Framework IConfig interface of our own, that just exposes a
few, simple config methods, like;
TValue IConfig.SetConfigValueTValue(string key, TValue value);
TValue IConfig.GetConfigValueTValue(string
Any chance we could finish this up soon? It's hard to work on
OpenSimulator when I have to do a clean checkout every few days or the
pluginloader throws errors.
Best Regards
Teravus
On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 8:13 AM, Melanie mela...@t-data.com wrote:
I'm not happy with that. I see no evil in
Melanie wrote:
I'm not happy with that. I see no evil in the nini references and I
like the option of using nin for private config files outside of
OpenSim.ini.
Also, I have several modules that read the config from another
module, so they need to be able to address sections.
Limiting
Homer Horwitz wrote:
Ok, I'll try to summarize a bit:
Sean had the great idea to use a dialect-independent way of naming our
methods: I'll use Init and PostInit :-)
Justin wondered whether we need an Init* method at all or if we just
could init on first region-add. The benefit of a
Hi,
PostInitialise is extremely important, because it is called at a
time when all modules' Initialise has been run. That means, all
modules have registered their interfaces and
RequestModuleInterface() is safe to use in PostInitialise _only_
in a module context. Several existing
Hi,
On Sun, 1 Feb 2009 18:51:33 +0100
Homer Horwitz homerhorw...@googlemail.com wrote:
We need a possibility to disable modules (preferably without first
loading them) without removing the *.dll; and there were some wishes
about the loader, pro and contra Mono.Addins. I think I'll have a
Homer Horwitz wrote:
Hi all,
the current system for handling region-modules is slightly broken if
you add/remove regions dynamically (or even for region-restarts). I've
put up some thoughts at
http://opensimulator.org/wiki/New_Region_Modules for discussion.
Please answer on the associated
MW wrote:
I have to say I'm not a big fan of what I've seen of mono.addins so far.
Maybe ExtensionLoader is better, so I do think we should look at that.
As I think it is better to only have one system of loading plugins/modules.
As for initialise vs Initialize, hehe. Well personally I think
Charles Krinke wrote:
ROFL. Oh, it was the 'z' versus the 's' you were discussing.
I thought it was the i versus the I.
ROFL. yeah, i can imagine there are folks out there that object to the capital
I as being too capitalistic...
--
dr dirk husemann virtual worlds research ibm
Ryan McDougall wrote:
My apologies for thread-jacking...
I just want to be clear I didn't propose it because I came later and
decided I didn't like UK spelling. I am Canadian and historically
Canadians have used UK spelling.
I proposed it for the same reason (US) English is the standard
MW wrote:
But do we standardize on one variant or standardise on that?
Sorry couldn't stop myself :)
that was a test :-) or was that a tezt? :-D
DrS/dirk
--
dr dirk husemann virtual worlds research ibm zurich research lab
SL: dr scofield drscofi...@xyzzyxyzzy.net
This is more to do with how we use Mono.Addins, but we really should make it a
lot easier to separate the various UGAIM servers, so that each one can be in
its own directory without needing the other UGAIM exe's to be in there.
By default we have the loading of plugins referencing all the
Ideia Boa wrote:
I think it was a te5t not a te2t
:)
oop5, m3 b4d.
Dr5/d1rk
Dr Scofield wrote:
MW wrote:
But do we standardize on one variant or standardise on that?
Sorry couldn't stop myself :)
that was a test :-) or was that a tezt? :-D
DrS/dirk
On Sun, Jan 25, 2009 at 3:33 AM, Jeff Ames jeffa...@gmail.com wrote:
...
For a non-shared module, is there a functional difference between
Initialise and AddRegion? Likewise with RemoveRegion and Close.
Registration happens in Initialise, so when the AddRegion call happens, all the
modules are
My apologies for thread-jacking...
I just want to be clear I didn't propose it because I came later and
decided I didn't like UK spelling. I am Canadian and historically
Canadians have used UK spelling.
I proposed it for the same reason (US) English is the standard
language of all things
On that page it did use to say we used UK spelling, but that seems to have got
lost through time.
On this whole subject I do think we should stay with Uk spelling, but I don't
see it as that big a deal, if we all decide to swap to US spellings then so be
it.
But I don't agree that US
On Sun, Jan 25, 2009 at 12:56 PM, Teravus Ovares tera...@gmail.com wrote:
Hmm.. whenever someone brings up an issue of common
standards, professionalism, code quality, and cooperation, I get
suspitious.. what might he 'really' be trying to do? *cough*..
anyway.
Software Engineering?
Or we can use either '2' or '5' instead of 'Z' and 'S' .
'2' being closer to Z. And '5' being closer to S.
So maybe we should vote on if it should be 2 or 5 we use.
Teravus Ovares tera...@gmail.com wrote: Lets make purposeful mispellings..
like website addresses.. so that
when people
As this thread has been thoroughly hijacked, I guess there aren't any
further relevant (um, I meant technical) problems with the proposal?
Cheers,
Homer
___
Opensim-dev mailing list
Opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de
MW wrote:
Yeah I wasn't really being serious that we should try to get as many spelling
systems or langauges as we can.
So I do agree that it would be best to have one, but its hard to force people
to use one system if that is different to what they are used to. Its just
natural to spell
Homer Horwitz wrote:
On Sun, Jan 25, 2009 at 6:13 PM, Justin Clark-Casey
jjusti...@googlemail.com wrote:
Could you wait a couple more days on this? I don't really have the
opportunity to give this the attention that it
deserves today (Sunday) and I may not be around at all tomorrow but I
actually should we wait a while and get more reaction. As this is going to
effect anyone who has a module that isn't in trunk. Seems a lot of hasle for
such a small thing.
Would seem better to wait and make the change when/if we change to homer's new
module interface.
MW
MW wrote:
actually should we wait a while and get more reaction. As this is going to
effect anyone who has a module that isn't in trunk. Seems a lot of hasle for
such a small thing.
Would seem better to wait and make the change when/if we change to homer's
new module interface.
Yes,
Ok, so I suggest we establish an 0.7 roadmap page. With that one as a
'definite', not a 'discussion'.Best regards,Stefan AnderssonTribal Media AB
Date: Sun, 25 Jan 2009 15:27:29 -0500 From: sda...@gmail.com To:
opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de Subject: Re: [Opensim-dev] Proposal for a
Hi all,
the current system for handling region-modules is slightly broken if
you add/remove regions dynamically (or even for region-restarts). I've
put up some thoughts at
http://opensimulator.org/wiki/New_Region_Modules for discussion.
Please answer on the associated 'discussion' page or here on
ROFL. Oh, it was the 'z' versus the 's' you were discussing.
I thought it was the i versus the I.
From: Dahlia Trimble dahliatrim...@gmail.com
To: opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de
Sent: Saturday, January 24, 2009 4:39:03 PM
Subject: Re: [Opensim-dev] Proposal for
One other suggested change.
Let's remove IConfigSource from the RegionModule Initialise method - and
instead make some kind of globally accessible (via Scene?) .Config. The reason
for this is twofold:
1. We pass config in multiple times, one per scene.
2. It introduces a dependency on Nini
27 matches
Mail list logo
