[Opensim-dev] AssetBase and metadata

[Melanie]

Since assets are implicitly shared, I see no way to couple 
permissions to assets without making copies of assets. In that case, 
assets would be linked 1-to-1 and mutable, rather than implicitly 
shared and immutable.

Melanie

Stefan Andersson wrote:
> 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. Mingl
ed 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 <sd
ague 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
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Opensim-dev mailing list
> Opensim-dev at lists.berlios.de
> https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev