[Opensim-dev] fyi: Some ExternalChecks method changes and a question about public interface policy

[Frisby, Adam]

Should we follow suit to PermissionsModule interfaces as we are doing with IClientAPI and make it a collection of possible interfaces?

Adam

> -----Original Message-----
> From: opensim-dev-bounces at lists.berlios.de [mailto:opensim-dev-
> bounces at lists.berlios.de] On Behalf Of Justin Clark-Casey
> Sent: Thursday, 13 November 2008 1:37 PM
> To: opensim-dev at lists.berlios.de
> Subject: [Opensim-dev] fyi: Some ExternalChecks method changes and a
> question about public interface policy
>
> For everybody's information, in the last few commits I renamed the
> existing ExternalChecks.CanCreateInventory,
> CanDeleteInventory, etc. to CanCreateObjectInvnetory,
> CanDeleteObjectInventory etc.
>
> My justification was that they were accepting an object id argument, so
> I assumed that they were intended for objects
> only rather than user inventories.  They also didn't appear to actually
> be being used anywhere in the code (though I
> have just added a call to the create one).
>
> I then added the following set of external hooks specifically for user
> inventory
>
> bool ExternalChecksCanCreateAvatarInventory(int invType, UUID userID)
> bool ExternalChecksCanCopyAvatarInventory(UUID itemID, UUID userID)
> bool ExternalChecksCanCopyAvatarInventory(UUID itemID, UUID userID)
> bool ExternalChecksCanDeleteAvatarInventory(UUID itemID, UUID userID)
>
> However, I appreciate that there are some external modules that
> implement the previous CanCreateInventory, etc.
> permission checks, even though they aren't yet used in the OpenSim
> code.  In particular, there appear to have been some
> interpretations of CanCreateInventory, etc. as applying to both objects
> and users.  In the user case, the objectID
> argument passed in would have been null (it would have been helpful to
> have some code documentation on this assumption,
> but I digress :)
>
> But there is a larger issue here.  Namely, to what extent should our
> public interfaces be fixed at this stage?  There is
> an argument that we should avoid changing these as much as possible.
> If they do have to be changed, then we should at
> least make an announcement before any changes.
>
> The permissions module is particularly sensitive, since a change in
> semantics may impact people's content.
>
> My personal view is that at this stage in our code evolution (until we
> reach 1.0 or very near to it), all interfaces are
> fair game for changes that aren't completely gratuitous.  Third party
> modules simply have to adapt.  I feel that even
> having to pre-announce changes is a significant brake on development.
>
> In addition, it's always going to be the responsibility of OpenSim
> users to make sure they are happy with the code
> before they put it into production.  At the top of every file we
> disclaim any liability for its actions.  A good set of
> unit tests would help build assurance as to the stability of the
> permission module's functionality.
>
> I'd like to know what views there are on this matter of public
> interfaces, particularly from other core developers.  If
> we do want to restrict public changes then I thank that we should have
> a well-understood written process.
>
> Apologies for the long post.
>
> Regards,
>
> --
> justincc
> Justin Clark-Casey
> http://justincc.wordpress.com
> _______________________________________________
> Opensim-dev mailing list
> Opensim-dev at lists.berlios.de
> https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev