[Opensim-dev] Supplying IScene instead of Scene for the future region modules mechanism

[Justin Clark-Casey]

Stefan Andersson wrote:
> Justin, Homer;
>  
> consider two things you might:
>  
> 1) take the opportunity to take a moment to re-ponder each "missing" 
> IScene power - should the caller perhaps move instead? Or should the 
> called method move to a place where the caller has access without going 
> thru IScene? Maybe the Scene is too big, not IScene too small?

Yes.  Scene is too big (even forgetting about Scene.Inventory.cs for the moment).  There's still a lot of functionality 
that can be broken into modules, I think, but it's getting quite difficult now (e.g. aspects of land which remain in 
scene, and the whole of inventory management).

>  
> 2) maybe the notion of a IScene vs a ISceneBase is really an indication 
> that you should have a 'ISceneForRegionModules' instead - an facade 
> enumerating the powers the core wish to expose to the scene, to force 
> the region module coder to code in a hygienic way. Laying the 
> foundations for a ISceneAPI, if you will?

Yeah, ISceneBase ain't a great name.  But I'm not too keen on ISceneForRegionModules either :).  ISceneAPI perhaps...

Of course, this also doesn't take into account the big lump of stuff hanging around in SceneGraph either...

> 
> On my mind for a long time, both these things has been.
> 
> Best regards,
> Stefan Andersson
> Tribal Media AB
> 
> 
> 
>  
>  > Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2009 18:02:45 +0100
>  > From: jjustincc at googlemail.com
>  > To: opensim-dev at lists.berlios.de
>  > Subject: [Opensim-dev] Supplying IScene instead of Scene for the 
> future region modules mechanism
>  >
>  > Hey Homer (since this is primarily addressed to you :),
>  >
>  > I see you're making some progress on the up-and-coming new region 
> modules mechanism.
>  >
>  > Instead of passing Scene itself to region modules, could we create an 
> interface so that we better control the amount of
>  > innards that we expose to region modules? It's convenient-ish to give 
> the original Scene class to modules now, but it
>  > will cause us problems down the road.
>  >
>  > I'm quite happy to pitch in with this if you want. I suggest renaming 
> the existing IScene to ISceneBase (since that's
>  > what it really is) and creating a new IScene that's implemented by Scene.
>  >
>  > It strikes me that it's going to be more convenient to do this when 
> we introduce the new system than as a separate change.
>  >
>  > Thoughts?
>  >
>  > --
>  > 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
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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