Talk:AssetServer
From OpenSimulator
(New section: Capability Cookies) |
|||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
Should systems like the asset service focus on strongly or weakly typed data? Are there compelling reasons to choose one direction over the other? --[[User:Jhurliman|Jhurliman]] 15:59, 6 October 2008 (PDT) | Should systems like the asset service focus on strongly or weakly typed data? Are there compelling reasons to choose one direction over the other? --[[User:Jhurliman|Jhurliman]] 15:59, 6 October 2008 (PDT) | ||
| + | |||
| + | == Capability Cookies == | ||
| + | |||
| + | I like the idea of capabilities being packaged as cookies, that seems much more palatable than (ab)using the URI. | ||
Revision as of 05:44, 9 October 2008
Metadata
As far as the specific serialization format goes I don't have much of a preference. Ideally, a robust asset server would support multiple serialization formats such as XML, LLSD XML, JSON, binary, etc. Where it gets tricky is with the higher level representation. There are two schools of thought: strongly typed data and weakly typed data. Linden Lab's UDP, Google's Protocol Buffers, and Facebook's Thrift are examples of strongly typed protocols. Linden Lab's structured data and most XML schemas are examples of weakly typed data.
Should systems like the asset service focus on strongly or weakly typed data? Are there compelling reasons to choose one direction over the other? --Jhurliman 15:59, 6 October 2008 (PDT)
Capability Cookies
I like the idea of capabilities being packaged as cookies, that seems much more palatable than (ab)using the URI.
