[Opensim-dev] A proposed groups architecture

[Melanie]

Hi,

Dahlia Trimble wrote:
> Perhaps there is some basic plumbing or initial functionality
> that can be added, but given the current problems with the LL implementation
> and some of the objectives and efforts of groups like the AWG, I would
> suggest we try to get more of a big picture perspective of what groups could
> be before implementing anything that requires a lot of work and may be
> difficult to change once added. On the other hand, could a simple interim
> solution be added which can be easily (for end users) replaced?

I believe that we will not want to copy SL's solution 1:1. We will 
want to consider things like cross-grid use, and the 25 group limit.
However, the standard is the SL client, which means we need to 
create a group structure for which a valid representation can be 
created and managed using the client.
I think we all agree that we should not _limit_ groups to what the 
client can do, but we should find a representation that reduces the 
interface to the point where, within that scope, the client can deal 
with it.
The main thing would be to implement the plumbing, since that job 
touches many parts of the code. However, that is fairly 
straightforward, although lots of work.
Once it's plumbed in, different backends and interfaces can be 
created, to levarage the features of other clients, or a mixed 
in-client and web administration.
Permissions-only groups can quite possibly be handled much 
differently, but i don't think that 25 is all she wrote.
I haven't tried it, but i see nothing in the protocol that prevents 
the group list from being longer, even much longer. The protocol 
already supports breaking it into several packets, which bit me when 
i made my first inviter bot. So it may be that the client won't mind 
being sent 50 or 75 groups...

> 
> I like the idea that permission groups and chat/notice groups could be
> seperate implementations. I've always had trouble juggling groups to stay
> within the 25 group limit and several times I've avoided situations that
> requiired joining a group for permissions if I needed to sacrifice a more
> social 

Yes, +1. That should be avoided. Maybe a web interface that handles 
group creation, as, I believe, the client does grey out the "New 
group" button when you have 25 in the list.

But, maybe the client will be patched by some kind soul...

But, +1 on trying to improve, certainly.

Melanie