[Opensim-dev] Proposal for a cleanup/correction of the region-module system

[Justin Clark-Casey]

Homer Horwitz wrote:
> Ok, I'll try to summarize a bit:
> 
> Sean had the great idea to use a dialect-independent way of naming our
> methods: I'll use Init and PostInit :-)
> 
> Justin wondered whether we need an Init* method at all or if we just
> could init on first region-add. The benefit of a separate Init +
> PostInit method is, that you can do things before any region has been
> added, but after all the (shared) modules have been initialized. I
> don't know whether that's necessary, but on the other hand, it doesn't
> hurt to have that possibility. It doesn't cost anything, after all. I
> could add some abstract base classes with default implementations, so
> you don't have to add an empty Init-method if you don't need it, but
> that's more or less syntactic sugar...

Fair enough - though I think I was messing about more with the need for Init() and Close() at all.  But this was 
something of a mental experiment - it does make things more readable and reduce the need for conditions if there are 
such explicit methods.

> 
> About the configuration: I don't like the idea of getting the config
> from the scene much, because (at least currently), configuration is
> owned by the server, not by one of its regions/scenes. While I
> understand that some modules won't need a configuration, having to add
> the Nini reference for a fresh region-module doesn't seem too
> difficult to me (the currently available ones already have that
> reference, so no change there). Even if we change that and will have
> region-specific parts of the configuration, the config as a whole will
> still be in the responsibility of the server, not the region, in my
> opinion.

Also fair enough from my perspective.

> 
> We need a possibility to disable modules  (preferably without first
> loading them) without removing the *.dll; and there were some wishes
> about the loader, pro and contra Mono.Addins. I think I'll have a look
> at Mono.Addins (including the IPlugin interface and the
> disable-by-config); it's the one we use already, and I agree that we
> should use only one loader, if possible without having to use too many
> workarounds. If not, ExtensionLoader might win ;-)

I feel that using ExtensionLoader here is effectively the same decision as using it everywhere, since in the long term I 
really don't think that we want multiple module systems.

> 
> "what happens to avatars that are in a region that you want to restart
> then? are they kicked out first? should they stay?"
> As the region goes down, they can't stay. So, either they will be
> moved away (TP home, maybe?) or they will be kicked out. Kicking them
> out might be the easier thing (and consistent with the SL behavior,
> too); TP home might be difficult if it is the home-region that is
> restarted.
> 
> I plan to do the move in an as compatible way as possible; if
> everything works as intended, the "old" modules will continue to work
> for a time. The move will happen in several steps
> - Implementation of the new module system (while keeping the old one functional)
> - Marking the old one as deprecated
> - Moving over all the available core region modules to the new system
> - Removing the old region module system
> 
> Especially the third part will take some time (not because it is hard,
> I don't think it is, but because we have quite a few modules)...
> 
> Thanks for all the contributions :-)
> 
> Any last comments?

Go Homer!

> 
> Cheers,
>   Homer
> _______________________________________________
> 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