[Opensim-dev] Please do not revert fixes without careful comtemplation

[Charles Krinke]

I am so sorry that we are having communications difficulties.

Terrain Images, are, I believe, neither "textual" nor "text".

That was just an example.

The point is that we need to be careful and consider all the various assets which include a lot more then textures and scripts.

Charles




________________________________
From: Melanie <melanie at t-data.com>
To: opensim-dev at lists.berlios.de
Sent: Monday, February 16, 2009 8:23:16 AM
Subject: Re: [Opensim-dev] Please do not revert fixes without careful comtemplation

Hello,

that was a typo. The correct word was "textual". All asset types 
besides textures are text.

Melanie

Charles Krinke wrote:
> Sorry, the other assets are not just "small texture data". We have terrainImages, amongst other things.
> 
> Our assets table in OpenSim contains lots of things including the infamouse "blank", so lets look at it in total and not just from the script viewpoint. 
> 
> Course with scripts themselves, we have every edited version of every edited script in addition to every change of every other asset complicating the problem.
> 
> Charles
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ________________________________
> From: Melanie <melanie at t-data.com>
> To: opensim-dev at lists.berlios.de
> Sent: Monday, February 16, 2009 4:44:56 AM
> Subject: Re: [Opensim-dev] Please do not revert fixes without careful comtemplation
> 
> Again, I'd like to stress that I believe this is too dangerous to do 
> for anything other than textures.
> It is also not really needed for things other than textures, since 
> the other assets are comparatively small, textural data.
> 
> I would not want to risk even the smallest chance of a hash 
> collision on script source.
> 
> Melanie
> 
> Stefan Andersson wrote:
>> Coming in a bit from the side here,
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> we have, for some time, discussed to separate out the binary blog out of the metadata for an entirely different reason, namely to be able to weed out binary duplicates.
>> 
>> 
>> If there was a way for us to separate out the binary parts, into something like 'binaryassetId, hashData[256], binarydata' and then just have the asset table referencing that row, I think it would help a lot.
>>  
>> 
>> I realize it's a separate discussion, just chipping in my two cents.
>> 
>> 
>> Best regards,
>> Stefan Andersson
>> Tribal Media AB
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> 
>> Date: Sat, 14 Feb 2009 17:49:22 +0200
>> From: tommi.s.e.laukkanen at gmail.com
>> To: mmazur at gmail.com
>> CC: opensim-dev at lists.berlios.de
>> Subject: Re: [Opensim-dev] Please do not revert fixes without careful comtemplation
>> 
>> 
>> Hello,
>>  
>> On second though we could keep the current structure and expose all fields also through AssetBase properties. Then we could save / load the AssetBase with nhibernate as a single object and leave out the Metadata  property from NHibernate mapping. Does this sound good?
>>  
>> regards,
>> Tommi
>> 
>> 
>> On Sat, Feb 14, 2009 at 5:06 PM, Mike Mazur <mmazur at gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>> Hi,
>> 
>> On Sat, Feb 14, 2009 at 4:05 PM, Tommi Laukkanen
>> 
>> <tommi.s.e.laukkanen at gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> I was talking with mikkopa and he suggested we should create two tables to
>>> cover AssetBase to solve this issue properly. Namely AssetMetadata for
>>> metadata information and AssetData for blobs to avoid situation where we end
>>> up accessing also the blob data just to read metadata.
>> 
>> I was hoping not to have to do that.
>> 
>> It should be straightforward to support the current
>> AssetBase/AssetMetadata composition in the existing OpenSim data
>> layers, but as sdague warned me earlier, by mapping multiple classes
>> to one table I was entering a world of pain. Seems that's exactly
>> what's happening with NHibernate.
>> 
>> The reason I introduced the AssetMetadata class is to supply metadata
>> information only for some requests that Cable Beach, the new asset
>> server, supports. Now I realize that this was probably a premature
>> optimization.
>> 
>> Instead of modifying the DB schema, we could have AssetBase inherit
>> from AssetMetadata, as I outlined before[1]. Alternatively, we could
>> get rid of AssetMetadata altogether and store everything in AssetBase
>> as before, splitting out the metadata sometime in the future when a
>> use case warrants it.
>> 
>> What do you think?
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> Mike
>> 
>> 
>> [1] https://lists.berlios.de/pipermail/opensim-dev/2009-February/004918.html
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/20090216/88abc0d2/attachment-0001.html>