[Opensim-dev] OSGrid <-> UCIGrid

Thu Oct 30 21:22:49 UTC 2008

I've been meaning to write a post for a very long time now. It's in my draft folder. Just not getting it finished.

First Step:
Just wanted you all to consider what would happen if we, on ExpectAvatar sent some aux info like 'home user server url', 'home asset server url' and 'home inventory server url' to be attached to the ScenePresence, and had all communications interactions use those provided urls.

What I'm saying is, that the region could accept any avatar in the form of an authenticated and authorized UUID only, so - "grid" would become meaningless and "intergrid" becomes a moot issue - all regions would always expect all clients to come from all different user/asset/inventory servers. The authorization aspect of the "grid" would then be a question of service trust, regions clustered under one governing entity implementing its own trust schemes. One basic trust scheme would probably be https.

Next Step:
Consider then, if you will, if the "home" configuration would simply be a function of a login to your own "home" login server, or simply as a function of a modified viewer, hence the viewer would send preffered service url's on login.

Hey Presto, 3D Web for real. It's not that far away, even given the current architecture.
Best regards,Stefan AnderssonTribal Media AB Join the 3d web revolution : http://tribalnet.se/ 

> Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2008 18:34:21 +0000> From: jjustincc at googlemail.com> To: opensim-dev at lists.berlios.de> Subject: Re: [Opensim-dev] OSGrid <-> UCIGrid> > Cristina Videira Lopes wrote:> > Justin Clark-Casey wrote:> >> Strong -1 on committing this code directly to core at this stage.> >>> >> Charles, I strongly believe it would be better for us to see this mature a little as an external module first, rather > >> than committing code directly to core. Please could we hold off at least until the code has reached some level of > >> maturity, at which point we can have a discussion about what we want to do.> >> > > +1 on Justin's -1 :-)> > There's no way I would propose the code as is today for a core patch; > > there's a lot stuff that is still loose.> > But I hope people will want the hypergrid model enough that the > > extensions will be delivered on the same "package" as the core, soon.> > And I hope there are volunteers from the core developers to help bring > > this up to speed!> > Cool, thanks Cristina, glad to know that we're on the same wavelength :)> > I'm sure there will be interest from core developers - there has been occasional conversation about looking at > alternative ways of doing things. But again, kudos for actually doing something - rough running code is always better > than talk :)> > I'm quite keen myself but unfortunately more prosaic OpenSim server bugs keep hitting me in the face in such a way that > I need to fix them for one reason or another.> > > > >> There is also an argument that such modules should eventually be outside the core anyway. The OGP modules we have are > >> in there because our region infrastructure module isn't advanced enough to make it easy to host these outside of core. > >> This is something we should address (either having some protocol modules in or having them all out).> >> > > +1 on that too. The hypergrid extension would be even simpler than what > > already is if only I could define externally what the comm module is. I > > suspect OGP suffers from the same problem.> > > >> That's not to say that this isn't very interesting work, Cristina. Does the code fit into the module structure?> >> > > Yes. As I said, the only weirdness comes because I can't spec the comms > > module. If you change that, it will be a charm (modulo some visibility > > changes here and there).> > Yep, apologies for not reading your previous e-mail carefully enough. When I get a chance, I'll see if I can look at > your code and change the structure such that things are easier in this respect (unless someone else does it first). Of > course, a patch to do such a thing is one that would be very welcome and quickly applied too.> > >> I had thoughts along similar lines for distributed grids.> >>> >> http://justincc.wordpress.com/2008/08/15/could-there-be-a-future-without-big-grids/> >>> >> but I never actually implemented anything = so fair do's to Cristina. Also, my thoughts were to conduct everything > >> client side.> >>> >> The problem does some with asset and inventory and routing this information around. My thinking was that it would be > >> better if the client fetch this information directly rather than via the sim, but this would require extensive (and > >> probably difficult) client changes.> >> > > A smarter client would make a lot of things a lot easier...> > God yes. Sometimes I think the fact that it is GPL'd has been a blessing in disguise - it allows us to implement a lot > of OpenSim without accompanying time spent thinking about the client. But it seems that things are getting to the stage > where the restrictions are as painful as they are beneficial.> > > > > _______________________________________________> > Opensim-dev mailing list> > Opensim-dev at lists.berlios.de> > https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev> > > > > -- > 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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://opensimulator.org/pipermail/opensim-dev/attachments/20081030/f00cf403/attachment-0001.html>