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

[Melanie]

Hi,

as a mid to long range goal, +1, actually.

but in the short run, the ability to load and unload regions is 
blocked by the existing module API, and to fix this basic piece of 
functionality, they need to be migrated to the new API, asap.

If this is dragged into a long architectural discussion, we won't 
get region restarts for many more months.

So, I'd rather see this iteration of the region module API pass 
Scene, and remove the old API very soon, and then think about 
architecting and refactoring when that is not a blocker to 
adding/repairing basic functionality.

Melanie


Stefan Andersson wrote:
> Um,
> 
>  
> 
> I believe you're saying "supplying a smaller subset of the functionalities of Scene", as being able to supply something else than a concrete implementation should never really be a problem - in fact, in most cases supplying an interface is more desirable.
> 
>  
> 
> That said, what I was advocating, is that what is now Scene, probably could do well with an overhaul, and an explicit enumeration of what a "Scene" implementation really needs to provide, on one side as a contract with the core, and on the other side, as a contract with the module API.
> 
>  
> 
> I believe that those things should probably look (subtly or radically) different. Not to _hide_ core functionality from the module, but to provide _tailored_ functionality, enumerated for smooth decoupling and encapsulation.
>  
> Best regards,
> Stefan Andersson
> Tribal Media AB
> 
> 
> 
>  
>> Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2009 20:32:48 +0200
>> From: melanie at t-data.com
>> To: opensim-dev at lists.berlios.de
>> Subject: Re: [Opensim-dev] Supplying IScene instead of Scene for the future region modules mechanism
>> 
>> I'm not happy with supplying IScene. It would basically curtail the 
>> functionality of region modules to what core believes should be 
>> possible, and will lead to ugly upcasting "(Scene)IScene" that the 
>> code is already rife with.
>> So, I'm not seeing that as a good idea at all, it limits things too 
>> much.
>> 
>> Melanie
>> 
>> Justin Clark-Casey wrote:
>> > 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?
>> > 
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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