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

[Justin Clark-Casey]

Melanie wrote:
> The important turning point of the discussion was when the talk 
> turned to splitting things out of Scene. I'm still dead set against 
> hiding Scene as it is today behind an interface, because it would 
> turn into just as unmaintainable a behemoth as IClientAPI is.
> However, breaking things out of Scene into contained classes and 
> making Scene into what it should be - a manager for the objects 
> contained in it - makes that concept viable.
> 
> I often react emotionally and quite strongly, you know that of me. 
> You also know I do come around, you've seen that many times.

Alright, I will try to factor that in.  I would also appreciate it if you could try to rein that in a bit - 
communication purely via text is already difficult enough.

> 
> Melanie
> 
> 
> Justin Clark-Casey wrote:
>> Melanie wrote:
>>> Looks like you didn't read my post. I said, as a mid to long range 
>>> goal, yes. I didn't say we should never have it. I said it would 
>>> block critical fixes if it were forced onto the new region module 
>>> interface now.
>> In your earlier posts you vehemently decried any notion of supplying a scene interface.  I hope you haven't forgotten 
>> these already.
>>
>>> I'm not bullying anyone. You have not yet had the pleasure of seeing 
>>> me bully anyone. :)
>> And I've no interest in trying to discuss something with someone who uses extreme statements without any hint that they 
>> can see the other person's point of view.
>>
>>> Melanie
>>>
>>> Justin Clark-Casey wrote:
>>>> Sean Dague wrote:
>>>>> Melanie wrote:
>>>>>> 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.
>>>>> I'd agree with Mel here about lets keep it a bit more open and sloppy
>>>>> for now, and start to lock that down once we're on the other side of the
>>>>> loader issue.
>>>>>
>>>>> We all come to this from different perspectives.  Mine is a lot of scars
>>>>> and lost time due to IScriptHost a year ago.  Just about every LSL
>>>>> commit required changing IScriptHost and adding back in functions for
>>>>> SOP.  Eventually, I just threw out IScriptHost, as it was clear that
>>>>> interface was far too premature.
>>>>>
>>>>> I think we're a bit premature on IScene at this point.  We know what we
>>>>> all would do with it, but leaving the barn door open to other random
>>>>> folks abusing the interfaces in ways that we didn't expect is probably
>>>>> reasonable at this stage, so we make sure we don't lock off a piece of
>>>>> function that's very reasonable to want.
>>>>>
>>>>> That being said, breaking Scene into more digestable parts would be a
>>>>> *very good thing*.
>>>> Definitely.  I've spent quite some time moving things out of Scene myself.  Much of what remains are the much more 
>>>> indigestible bits (e.g. land/terrain management, inventory).  I plan to look at these in the course of my normal 
>>>> attempts to chip away at the big ball of mud but any help here would be much appreciated.
>>>>
>>>> Switching the region module mechanism seemed to me to be a good opportunity to introduce a Scene interface without 
>>>> causing a separate bout of pain later on.  But on hearing some of the rational feedback, I accept that it could still be 
>>>> too early to do this.  If people were to treat this interface as a contract they could build against, as Teravus pointed 
>>>> out, then it needs to be stable.
>>>>
>>>> Nonetheless, I'm seeing that with the exception of Melanie, the core developers who have posted are in favour of having 
>>>> an interface eventually (I presume before 1.0).  So it is coming and if people have to endure some update pain later on, 
>>>> well that's the price of building against alpha code.  It's not a huge upheaval either, in most cases it is simply a 
>>>> search and replace of Scene with IScene.  When this happens later on I will point back at this discussion as warning.
>>>>
>>>> I'm quite happy to hear arguments against a scene interface, but I will forcefully counter and later ignore any attempt 
>>>> by Melanie to bully me off the point with completely exaggerated statements.  We're here to discuss, negotiate and 
>>>> compromise in good faith, not to shout at each other across the mailing lists.
>>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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