On Fri, 23 Feb 2007 14:49:43 -0500, Peter Amstutz wrote:
On Thu, Feb 22, 2007 at 11:16:24PM -0500, Rob Meyers wrote:
In terms of your scripts section, it would be great to have a COM binding
to your api. Although this is pretty winders specific, it opens up all
your code to .Net. I've done
On Sat, 24 Feb 2007 16:50:08 -0500, Reed Hedges wrote:
On Sat, 24 Feb 2007 13:30:52 -0800, Ken Taylor wrote:
I see Reed uses a
dvorak keyboard! ;)
Haha, I picked Dvorak up from Pete actually.
Damn, Ken found us out! Yes, VOS is part of the International Dvorak
Conspiracy. Aoeui! Aoeui!
Lalo Martins wrote:
Conversely, on Linux, I have long wanted to have d-bus bindings, which
would achieve more or less the same effect. That is something that
probably will be in s5 out of the box -- you add a site extension
(assuming site extensions exist in s5; or whatever is the equivalent
Glad you've stuck with us.
I remember VRSpace (well, visiting the web page anyhow). What became of
that? It looks like there's still some mailing list activity.
Oh yeah, VRSpace is still kicking as I understand. I stopped working on it
somewhere in 2004 so haven't really played much with it
Yea, that's reasonable. It should be a core:error method though, and
you'll want to come up with an error code and maybe raise an exception
on the caller.
On Sat, Feb 24, 2007 at 08:24:36PM -0500, Reed Hedges wrote:
I encountered a problem in S4 just now: if you send a message to an
object
Well, the gist of it is we will want to support some kind of single
sign-on scheme so that users don't need to set up a separate login or
identity for every virtual world that they visit. OpenID may be one
direction to go with that -- but there are a number of other centralized
authentication
Quick thing to point out, COM and D-BUS are fundamentially different in
that COM objects are usually loaded in-process, whereas D-BUS is used to
communicate between running processes. Interoperability has a number of
different dimensions, and concurrency/flow-of-control issues are a
critical
Do you have UDP implemented?
I imagine the physics would require fast client-server UDP link,
chris
On 2/26/07, Peter Amstutz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Since VOS was originally conceived as a peer-to-peer system, we had this
idea that we could do client-based physics, but that idea quickly
Peter Amstutz wrote:
Since VOS was originally conceived as a peer-to-peer system, we had this
idea that we could do client-based physics, but that idea quickly breaks
down when you have more than one client applying force to a single
object. So it will probably end up being something like
