[Opensim-dev] dispatcher interface
Justin Clark-Casey
jjustincc at googlemail.com
Tue Dec 23 21:35:05 UTC 2014
On 21/12/14 06:36, Mic Bowman wrote:
>
> 2) example serialization -- there is an example in the document.
>
> {
> "$type": "Dispatcher.Messages.CreateCapabilityRequest",
>
> "_AsyncRequest": false,
> "_Capability": "a1b108dc-11aa-44cb-a971-760dbadef07c",
> "_Domain": "Dispatcher",
> "_Scene": "Test Region",
> "DomainList": ["Dispatcher", "RemoteControl"],
> "FirstName": "Test",
> "LastName": "User",
> "HashedPasswd": "99cafb4ff0e3a8a6708f3854b713b552",
> "LifeSpan": 300,
> "UserID": "16d0f788-2066-4b64-b248-ffa239f62240"
> }
So, an issue here on any use over untrusted networks (i.e. the internet) may be continual sending of an MD5 password,
which for any common password will not be hard to crack.
That said, default login over http is currently worse.
In both cases, it should really be necessary, quite possibly mandatory, to use https though that involves setting up the
probably self-signed cert, etc. I think Teravus implemented that for login but I have never got round to digging up the
details.
>
> 3) a new communication
>
> well... its never stopped us before. you forgot the stats interface, the remote administration interface, and the
> websocket interface. oh... and don't forget all the methods that LSL supports. i'm sure there are more.
That's true, but I don't think that's an argument for continuing to do it. Do you think it's reasonable to always have
a hodge-podge of entirely different calling formats for different facilities where there is no technical reason for them
to be different? I'm not saying dispatcher has to be changed but if it isn't then I think we should have some agreement
that this kind of approach should be used for future similar interfacing facilities, not something different every
single time.
>
> 4 there would only be C# in core. the only non-C# code is the client libraries which may or may not be distributed with
> core. they are not built or compiled as part of building or installing opensim. its more like distributing a bunch of
> assets for an avatar's library.
>
> all that being said... if we actually had a reasonable distribution mechanism we wouldn't be having this conversation
> because many (most) of the modules we package as optional modules should be loaded dynamically. something like PyIP or
> CPAN. but we don't have one of those.
>
> so my question is... what's the point of putting it in core at all if we going to require anyone who uses it to go
> digging for client libraries from some other site? while someone could generate their own json libraries, the effort of
> putting it in core is really not worth it for the *very* small number of people who will do that. on the other hand...
> if there are some useful commands already distributed with core (in a utility director or something), then we have added
> value.
I do appreciate your argument. As Tommy mentioned, there is NuGet but I'm not sure how mature it is for Mono or even
stuff outside Visual Studio (which seems to be its main use).
I would regard anything in the OpenSimulator tar.gz as part of core.
To me, among the problems with bundling client libraries with OpenSimulator are
1) Which languages? The last thing we need is a free-for-all.
2) Where do you stop? OpenSimulator has a large surface. I could put in all my code for interfacing with services, for
instance, where PHP made the most sense (ugh). Why not then extend to stats analysis code (written in Python)? Why not
then a web interface?
3) If someone wants to contribute then it has to be a core process and is very tied to OpenSimulator. I would argue
this discourages reimplementation in other servers and raises the bar where this might not otherwise be necessary.
Indeed, I have received a request to separate out pCampbot so ppl can work on it without being part of core. I don't
think this is unreasonable in the long run though it's non-trivial to do (it relies on opensim console stuff) and it
would have to be a decision agreed by core.
I'm not saying the kitchen sink approach is necessarily bad but I think either you do include a lot of stuff or very
little/none. I still prefer external repositories for client code, I don't think it's so bad and forces the
documentation to be better.
>
> --mic
>
>
> On Fri, Dec 19, 2014 at 6:16 PM, Justin Clark-Casey <jjustincc at googlemail.com <mailto:jjustincc at googlemail.com>> wrote:
>
> I would be happy to see this in core. I do have the following questions/points. I would ideally like to see much
> of this stuff in a feature proposal page [1] and that can later also become some documentation.
>
> 1. Please could you go into detail about the authentication/access model. Looking over the code, I see text about
> domains, capabilities, authentication by hashed password, etc. but I would like an overview on how this fits together.
>
> 2. Please could you give an example serialization of one of the JSON messages. I would like to see the basic form
> and what one expects to see in such a message.
>
> 3. This would be yet another different kind of message passing in OpenSimulator, to join XMLRPC, JSON RPC, form,
> etc, where the majority of internal communication is via XMLRPC. I'm not saying we should persist with XMLRPC in
> this case, but I would really like to see some agreement on how communication should evolve in the future, whether
> that should be JSON/BSON or something else.
>
> 4. I don't feel that we should change our rule of only having C# code in core. Having other languages or client
> code increases project complexity and implies a commitment to maintain code which is not part of the server system
> (hence I think one could make a case for separating out pCampbot but that's another topic). I think it's fine for
> the client code to be external as long as there are open-source clients under a permissive license (Vivox being a
> historical exception) and the interfaces are documented.
>
> 5. Regarding documentation, to be clear I think wiki pages will be required documenting the general approach,
> security model, etc.
>
> 6. In this case, I don't think that this facility should be enabled by default as it does expose a method of
> interacting with the simulator with security implications, even on a private network.
>
> 7. I see all the license notices are BSD but with an extra "EXPORT LAWS" text which I find rather bizarre as it
> purports to add "NO RESTRICTIONS TO THE EXPORT LAWS OF YOUR JURISDICTION". I find this rather bizarre (why have
> such a paragraph if it doesn't do anything?). Apparantly, Intel itself has ceased to use or recommend this license
> text [2] and has asked the OSI to remove it for future use as an approved license back in 2005 [3]. Is it going to
> be a problem to remove this text before adding any code into core?
>
> [1] http://opensimulator.org/wiki/__Feature_Proposals <http://opensimulator.org/wiki/Feature_Proposals>
> [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/__Intel_Open_Source_License <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_Open_Source_License>
> [3] http://news.cnet.com/Intel-to-__stop-using-open-source-__license/2100-7344_3-5648518.__html
> <http://news.cnet.com/Intel-to-stop-using-open-source-license/2100-7344_3-5648518.html>
>
>
> On 19/12/14 00:11, Mic Bowman wrote:
>
> i've had several requests for the dispatcher interface to be moved into core. dispatcher package consists of two
> pieces:
>
> dispatcher -- the core modules that implement the message transfer, message encoding and some of the basic messages
> (informational messages and messages to create and renew access capabilities).
>
> https://github.com/cmickeyb/__scisim-addons/tree/master/__dispatcher
> <https://github.com/cmickeyb/scisim-addons/tree/master/dispatcher>
>
> remote control -- a collection of messages that implement a OpenSim remote scripting API. these messages include
> some
> basics for accessing/creating assets, for getting/setting avatar appearance, sending messages, managing objects
> in the
> scene, and managing some of the region characteristics. there are also messages for registering remote handlers for
> touch events. clearly this is just a start (though there is a surprisingly large number of things you can do
> with these).
>
> https://github.com/cmickeyb/__scisim-addons/tree/master/__rcontrol
> <https://github.com/cmickeyb/scisim-addons/tree/master/rcontrol>
>
> for more information on what the dispatcher is and why you might want to use it, watch the OSCC presentation
> http://www.ustream.tv/__recorded/55195110 <http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/55195110> or take a look at the kinds
> of scripts that you can write by looking in the
> scripts directory of the rcontrol repository.
>
> with all that said...
>
> i would like to start the discussion about whether this is useful enough to be moved into core & how that should
> happen.
>
> i don't have a particular stake in whether its moved to core. there are benefits to both. its easier for me to
> change
> for my purposes if if its outside core and its (much) easier for the community to use it if its in core. if the
> community believes there is sufficient value, then we should move it in.
>
> if it is not moved inside, i would appreciate suggestions on how to distribute the libraries. this is an ongoing
> problem
> for opensim... how to provide simple access to a dynamic set of region modules. probably a bigger discussion.
>
> if we think the dispatcher API should be moved into core, then there are a few questions about how that should
> happen.
> clearly the region modules can be moved into OpenSim/Region/__OptionalModules. that's easy. the more interesting
> question
> is where to put the client libraries (these are the perl & python libraries that are used to build dispatcher
> clients)
> and the control scripts that are rather useful for managing a region. I would propose placing them in a
> directory under
> OpenSim/Tools though they really aren't tools in the sense of the other packages in that directory.
>
> the final question is about documentation. the api is already pseudo-self documenting... the API lets you can
> ask any
> simulator for the messages it supports & then ask for examples of the messages themselves. i'm planning to add a
> "documentation" string for each as well. some other methods for autodoc would be useful though pulling out
> dispatcher
> documentation from within the multitude of existing opensim autodoc might be challenging (not something i have any
> experience with).
>
> --mic
>
>
>
>
> _________________________________________________
> Opensim-dev mailing list
> Opensim-dev at opensimulator.org <mailto:Opensim-dev at opensimulator.org>
> http://opensimulator.org/cgi-__bin/mailman/listinfo/opensim-__dev
> <http://opensimulator.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev>
>
>
>
> --
> Justin Clark-Casey (justincc)
> OSVW Consulting
> http://justincc.org
> http://twitter.com/justincc
>
> _________________________________________________
> Opensim-dev mailing list
> Opensim-dev at opensimulator.org <mailto:Opensim-dev at opensimulator.org>
> http://opensimulator.org/cgi-__bin/mailman/listinfo/opensim-__dev
> <http://opensimulator.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Opensim-dev mailing list
> Opensim-dev at opensimulator.org
> http://opensimulator.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev
>
--
Justin Clark-Casey (justincc)
OSVW Consulting
http://justincc.org
http://twitter.com/justincc
More information about the Opensim-dev
mailing list