[Opensim-dev] Always mutable assets in OpenSim -- does it make sense?

[Melanie]

Well, in this particular corner case, caches are not in play at all.

Melanie

Frisby, Adam wrote:
> This isn't true.
> 
> Updating on one server is fast, sure.
> 
> But you have the problem of caching - when fetching from the cache you always want the latest version, so updates need to purge every cache of the original version too.
> 
> That's why LL (and many others) assign new indexes for each revision.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Adam
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: opensim-dev-bounces at lists.berlios.de [mailto:opensim-dev-
>> bounces at lists.berlios.de] On Behalf Of Melanie
>> Sent: Sunday, 14 December 2008 2:59 PM
>> To: opensim-dev at lists.berlios.de
>> Subject: Re: [Opensim-dev] Always mutable assets in OpenSim -- does it
>> make sense?
>>
>> At 50 million assets, update is significantly faster than insert.
>>
>> It is true, however, that a delete interface would accomplish this
>> task as well, leaving no dead assets and only one dead asset in the
>> case of a crash.
>>
>> Melanie
>>
>>
>> Sean Dague wrote:
>> > Melanie wrote:
>> >> This is not about mutable notecards. This is about one particular
>> >> case, attachment editing, and the desire to avoid thousands of dead
>> >> assets being created by a single long attachment editing session,
>> >> while at the same time not wanting to lose the work people have done
>> >> in a crash.
>> >> I never intended to have this mutate into a discussion on changing
>> >> the basic paradigm of immutable assets, but just to get one
>> >> exception to that rule in one case where it is safe to do so and
>> >> provides the most elegant solution for an otherwise tricky issue.
>> >>
>> >> I am very unhappy that this got derailed into a discussion about
>> >> making all assets mutable. This is not what i intended.
>> >>
>> >> I may be better off maintaining nice, clean, working attachment
>> >> persistence as a private patch.
>> >
>> > Melanie,
>> >
>> > If this is just about dead assets why not just open up a delete
>> > interface to the asset database?  A database update to a blob isn't
>> > substantially faster than delete / insert.  That's what was done with
>> > the osDynamicTexture calls so that we stopped filling up the caches
>> with
>> > long dead assets.
>> >
>> > I understand that updatable assets is a solution here, but it does
>> open
>> > up a can of worms.  If an interface is there for mutable assets
>> someone
>> > else will decide "well, it would make case X easier, so I'll use it
>> > there" and not really understand that it's not going to do what they
>> want.
>> >
>> > Another issue with updateable assets is that it would make sha1 uuids
>> > impossible.  I'd hate to give that one up for future implementation.
>> >
>> >       -Sean
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> ---
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > 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
> _______________________________________________
> Opensim-dev mailing list
> Opensim-dev at lists.berlios.de
> https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev
> 
>