[Opensim-dev] Development models (was Re: The essence of "grid")

[Mike Dickson]

And you're being argumentative just to do it.

Look, OpenSim at least initially was all about the LL grid.  Without a
client to access the simulator all the shiny server bits aren't terribly
useful.  And there have been a number of starts at other clients. For
the most part however people who connect to OpenSim do it with a LL or
derived viewer.

If the LL protocol stuff ends up in a forge module (because the
framework can handle that level of separation) I'd be perfectly ok with
that.  People will use OpenSim for a variety of projects from running
production traffic (today very likely based on a LL or derived viewer)
to futuristic exploration (like Hypergrid). That's a pretty wide set of
use cases to support. I care more about the process than a specific
product (other than that I can make my product using the framework and
have some semblance of success at it). 

My argument FWIW wasn't about a specific protocol. It's about how it
evolves successfully to support the widely varied use cases OpenSim is
being applied to. Hence the change in subject line.  

Mike

On Fri, 2009-04-17 at 16:29 +0000, Melanie wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> you're basing your argument on a flawed assumption.
> 
> OpenSim's purpose is NOT to be a SL clone. It is to be expected that 
> OpenSim will evolve away from the LL model in significant ways, 
> possibly even before 1.0.
> 
> If your desire is to duplicate the LL grid, you can likely still do 
> it, and in the future you may need additional modules, which may be 
> on forge.
> 
> Hypergrid is certainly core, because Hypergrid is what the core team 
> sees as the future. SL compatibility is still a focus, but is 
> largely understood as a stepping stone into the next generation web.
> 
> Therefore, you may well find a "walled garden" forge module in the 
> future.
> 
> Melanie
> 
> 
> Mike Dickson wrote:
> > Justin, thanks for clarifying the process. And I certainly understand
> > the interest in Hypergrid and the energy behind it. Charles your message
> > was also helpful in highlighting to me what is at the center of my
> > concern.  I agree the development process is somewhat chaotic and things
> > get hacked in based on interest.  That's probably completely to be
> > expected though it may not make for the best platform going forward.
> > 
> > Using Hypergrid as an example,my preference would be to do it outside of
> > core. So let me explain that.  Something like Hypergrid is going to
> > require a different usage model from the original core (different
> > protocols for "teleporting", now the exploration around inventory, etc).
> > Rather than have the changes to handle that get introduced into core I'd
> > have preferred to see something like an RFC that documents what is being
> > proposed, and what "interfaces" need to be changed in order to
> > accommodate the new use cases.  That RFC gets iterated and the
> > interfaces evolved to make "hypergrid" possible as a pluggable module.
> > Over time most likely the set of commonly used modules grows and you
> > ultimately end up with a core framework and a "core" set of modules that
> > define what the out of the box functionality of an installation is
> > (standalone, hypergrid, what have you).
> > 
> > The obvious problem with this approach is that it requires evolving the
> > core framework which is not nearly as "sexy" as hacking in new features.
> > I've done both approaches.  Certainly a cool demo can go a long way to
> > sell a concept and often the change the framework process takes enough
> > time that prototypes don't happen. It's more work to maintain a branched
> > copy of core while you evolve your prototype into a set of changed
> > interfaces that support it.  Personally I believe that more disciplined
> > approach is the key to seeing OpenSim get to 1.0. And ultimately be a
> > better platform for experimentation.
> > 
> > So I like the concept of hypergrid.  I think prototypes like that need
> > to exist if only to prove that the community is healthy. But I also
> > believe that how the "framework" is defined and evolves is equally if
> > not more important (to me at least). 
> > 
> > Just my 2 cents.
> > 
> > Mike
> > 
> > On Fri, 2009-04-17 at 15:35 +0000, Justin Clark-Casey wrote:
> >> But I do have to also point out that OpenSim development is largely driven by the interest of the developers (since 
> >> there's no single company behind it).  If there's a lot of development interest behind Hypergrid then this is the 
> >> direction that's inevitably going to progress most.  If people coming along contributing code that enhances different 
> >> architectures, then development will also be driven in that direction.
> > 
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > Opensim-dev mailing list
> > Opensim-dev at lists.berlios.de
> > https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev
> > 
> > 
-- 
Mike Dickson <mike.dickson at hp.com>
BladeSystem infrastructure R&D