[Opensim-dev] AssetBase and metadata

Mon Feb 2 14:22:08 UTC 2009

Hm, thinking a bit more about it, I guess you have a very good point there;

of course, you could let there be an 'virtual' inventory item (with the assetId as the inventoryId) that translates to the asset itself - and that would have some special way of determining permissions.

That said, I'd much rather do something like separating out the 'permissions' bit in inventory and have that mean 'asset permissions for the trust domain' - you can still operate on the permissions in the same manner, and the net result will be the same, I guess.

In other words; instead of having restricted inventory and full access assets, I'd rather say you had full access inventory and restricted assets, if that is any the least clearer?

If you strip out permissions and type from inventory, the only thing left is name, owner and some data - and the inventory has most oftenly a pretty straightforward perms set (only let owner see and change on trusted regions) while assets parms can vary wildly with application.
Best regards,Stefan AnderssonTribal Media AB> Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2009 08:24:52 -0500> From: teravus at gmail.com> To: opensim-dev at lists.berlios.de> Subject: Re: [Opensim-dev] AssetBase and metadata> > To the 'all assets have inventory items associated with them', no,> they don't, however, there's no harm in requesting the inventory item> where possible. It would limit the UUIDs that systems would have> access to as a reference, as well. I'm sure that there will be some> methods that must use Asset ID. Mostly, images. I suppose object> inventory might use Asset ID also, but probably does not have to until> they're requested by the client for editing.> > To the 'So I guess I don't understand what specific case you're> referring to?', See last Tuesday's Zero meeting for several references> to the pitfalls of Hypergrid (and it's not just Zero saying things to> criticize it. It's our users as well. That was a widely positive> meeting towards Hypergrid to the detriment of LLOGP. Mingled within> that, the way we handle property was the main criticism.> > Reference: http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/User:Zero_Linden/Office_Hours/2009_Jan_27> > I was saying that currently, we're doing nothing at all to limit> trust. If we maintain this approach, it will be a big factor in> other, non-currently-codified, standards being adopted and It'll> likely be impossible to fully implement other 'permissioned' standards> without some way to check the permissions first (such as OGP).> Currently, directly requesting Assets precludes this option. Not all> virtual worlds will have 'Property', but the ones that do will suffer.> Comparing to a web server, think .htaccess.> > Best Regards> > Teravus> > On 2/2/09, Stefan Andersson <stefan at tribalmedia.se> wrote:> > Are we sure all assets have inventory items associated with them?> >> > I can think of scripted objects that set textureIds programatically.> > (Melanie pointed that out to me)> >> > You can also have the case where you upload a texture (yes, it's in> > inventory) apply it to a shirt, then delete the original inventory item (the> > asset is still referenced from within the shirt asset, but is in no> > inventory)> >> > So I guess I don't understand what specific case you're referring to?> >> > Best regards,> > Stefan Andersson> > Tribal Media AB> >> >> > > Date: Sun, 1 Feb 2009 23:58:55 -0500> > > From: teravus at gmail.com> > > To: opensim-dev at lists.berlios.de> > > Subject: Re: [Opensim-dev] AssetBase and metadata> > >> > > Is there any reason that we don't request items from the asset server> > > internally by the inventory UUID instead of the asset UUID?> > > Requesting assets by inventory UUID would make it a LOT simpler to> > > apply permissions at the trusted service level instead of at the> > > simulator level.> > >> > > Best Regards> > >> > > Teravus> > >> > > On 2/1/09, Mike Mazur <mmazur at gmail.com> wrote:> > > > Hi,> > > >> > > > On Fri, 30 Jan 2009 07:37:27 -0500> > > > Sean Dague <sdague at gmail.com> wrote:> > > >> > > > > It's fine for the object to be called AssetMetaData, just don't make> > > > > the property that.> > > >> > > > On Fri, 30 Jan 2009 14:51:12 +0000 (GMT)> > > > MW <michaelwri22 at yahoo.co.uk> wrote:> > > >> > > > > I agree, I'd say call the class AssetMetaData, but just call the> > > > > property (in AssetBase) MetaData.> > > >> > > > Makes perfect sense. Thanks for the feedback.> > > >> > > > Mike> > > > _______________________________________________> > > > 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> >> >> > _______________________________________________> > 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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://opensimulator.org/pipermail/opensim-dev/attachments/20090202/7436cb17/attachment-0001.html>