[Opensim-dev] Please do not revert fixes without careful comtemplation
Melanie
melanie at t-data.com
Mon Feb 16 20:17:58 UTC 2009
No. Terrain images are textures. They are assets referring to jp2
streams. That makes them textures. And, AFAIK, all other assets are
text.
Melanie
Charles Krinke wrote:
> 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
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Opensim-dev mailing list
> Opensim-dev at lists.berlios.de
> https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev
More information about the Opensim-dev
mailing list