[Opensim-dev] Perl vs C# UGAI?

Thu Apr 3 12:51:10 UTC 2008

I think it highly desirable to envision the opensim project in the terms
that lulurun has used; to paraphrase, a set of protocols and an associated
API.

I for one am delighted to see implementations in alternate languages coming
to the fore; c# has been shown to be anything but optimal for this
application area (IMHO) and alternatives are beneficial in a variety of
ways, from providing practical alternatives to performance baselines.

I am so committed to this notion that I have undertaken the study of Erlang
in the interest of creating an implementation of opensim in that language,
which in my estimation is a far more suitable implementation language than
either perl or c#.

This of course represents only my personal perspective, and perhaps only
incidentally that of a few others; and while what is a solution for me or
lulurun is not necesarily the solution for everyone, every effort should be
made to encourage such efforts in the interest of providing options to the
implementor of regions and grids.

At the very least, every effort should be made not to discourage such
projects.

For me, I say leave the perl code right where it is, and embrace this turn
of events with the same sort of technical vigor and optimism that has been
typical of this project in the past.

Just my 0.02$L

Cheers,
daTwitch

On Thu, Apr 3, 2008 at 7:28 AM, Melanie <melanie at t-data.com> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> to me, the apache-based UGAI seems like a light at the end of the
> tunnel, finally there is a way to create a UGAI that is not all
> custom stuff, where one bad request can't kill the grid dead, where
> restarting is easy, and load balancing is, as well.
>
> Taking it out of SVN means relegating it to a backseat, where
> changes in it can be made by only it's creator. Developer feedback
> would be low to nonexistent. It would totally preclude it becoming
> the "standard" UGAI, replacing the C# ones.
>
> I say, leave it in there and let people vote with their feet! I
> never felt comfortable with the C# UGAI, and I'm happy this has
> finally appeared.
>
> Some here have written alternative UGAI, but never much publicized
> that. Now someone does, and it sparks up a whole big controversy.
> Some people don't trust the C# UGAI, so why is there a desire to
> make it appear that those are the only option?
>
> Melanie
>
>
> Michael Wright wrote:
> > One problem with having two sets of UGAI is that it makes changes harder
> to do. As I'm not really a perl programmer, if I was going to doing a change
> to something in the grid servers or the protocol. It would mean I either had
> to change the perl ones too or break those. And as they are in our svn, we
> would most likely getting people complaining they are broke. And this is a
> big factor in my mind as over the next few weeks there is a chance that I
> will be able to do some work on the grid servers/protocols.
> >
> >  I'm with Stefan on this one, in that I'm all for there being different
> implementations of the UGAI's but think for now we should only have one in
> the svn other wise it is just going to lead to confusion/problems if one
> implementation is broke because of some change to the other. So think other
> implementations should be outside the svn.
> >
> > We do understand that not everyone wants to use the standard c# versions
> (and to be fair, who would? with the general state they are in). Thats why
> we (myself and Stefan) have wrote our own ASP version of some of the backend
> servers, but we haven't added them to the svn for the reasons I gave above.
> In that not everyone would want to run ASP servers, so we think at this time
> at least there should only be one version in svn. So that people aren't
> affraid to do changes in them, like they could be if they knew that there
> was other versions in svn that they were breaking by doing those changes.
> >
> > Stefan Andersson <stefan at tribalmedia.se> wrote:    .hmmessage P {
> margin:0px; padding:0px } body.hmmessage { FONT-SIZE: 10pt;
> FONT-FAMILY:Tahoma }  Simple and straight answer: "No."
> >
> >  Also, the whole 'share' dir should be externalized into some other
> repository, or just a (set of) downloadable tarball(s) on the wiki, ASAP
> >
> >  /Stefan
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------
> >  Date: Wed, 2 Apr 2008 20:02:52 -0700
> > From: cfk at pacbell.net
> > To: opensim-dev at lists.berlios.de
> > Subject: [Opensim-dev] Perl vs C# UGAI?
> >
> >    .ExternalClass DIV {;}     I am really puzzled about this new Perl
> UGAI and it leads to a number of questions:
> >
> > Are we going to have two sets of servers for grid mode? One written in
> C# and the other written in Perl?
> >
> > Will we have each of them with the same features? Will we abandon the C#
> UGAI servers?
> >
> > How will we seperate out issues between regions on a grid and the grid
> servers if some grids run with Perl UGAI and some run with C# UGAI?
> >
> > Charles
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Opensim-dev mailing list
> > Opensim-dev at lists.berlios.de
> > https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev
> >
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------
> >  Yahoo! for Good helps you make a difference
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Opensim-dev mailing list
> > Opensim-dev at lists.berlios.de
> > https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev
> _______________________________________________
> Opensim-dev mailing list
> Opensim-dev at lists.berlios.de
> https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev
>

-- 
===================================
The wind
scours the earth for prayers
The night obscures them
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://opensimulator.org/pipermail/opensim-dev/attachments/20080403/5dae4076/attachment-0001.html>