<html><body>
<p>Agreed, I'd vote to only ship LSL. Maybe C#. Everything else optional. CPANish repository would be perfect.<br>
<br>
krtaylor - Kurt Taylor<br>
<br>
<br>
<tt>opensim-dev-bounces@lists.berlios.de wrote on 06/01/2008 10:45:48 PM:<br>
<br>
> I'm personally quite in favour of us developing a CPAN-like repository<br>
> for OpenSim modules. To me it makes a very good deal of sense.<br>
> <br>
> Regards,<br>
> <br>
> Adam<br>
> <br>
> -----Original Message-----<br>
> From: opensim-dev-bounces@lists.berlios.de<br>
> [<a href="mailto:opensim-dev-bounces@lists.berlios.de">mailto:opensim-dev-bounces@lists.berlios.de</a>] On Behalf Of Justin<br>
> Clark-Casey<br>
> Sent: Sunday, 1 June 2008 8:44 PM<br>
> To: opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de<br>
> Subject: [Opensim-dev] Should the core OpenSim distribution carry<br>
> manyscripting languages?<br>
> <br>
> Hi there,<br>
> <br>
> Last week, Kinoc was kind enough to write an implementation of Yield <br>
> Prolog where YP is translated into underlying C# for compilation (in the<br>
> <br>
> same manner as our current LSL support). This patch was included in <br>
> OpenSim in r4927.<br>
> <br>
> I have nothing against Prolog (admittedly I have never had the chance to<br>
> <br>
> pick up) and certainly nothing against Kinoc. However, I am concerned <br>
> that by including many scripting languages in the OpenSim core <br>
> distribution (if Prolog, why not Javascript, Ruby, Python, etc, etc.) we<br>
> <br>
> incur more negatives than positives. Firstly, I'm concerned that a <br>
> proportion of this code (particularly that which no core committer has <br>
> an interest in) will at some point slip into decay, particularly if the <br>
> original contributor has moved on to other things. We've already seen <br>
> this happen with other areas of the code, such as the MSSQL database <br>
> support.<br>
> <br>
> Secondly, if individual language modules do need to change in response <br>
> to other OpenSim changes without a decay option (for example, in order <br>
> that they can still compile), this places a higher burden on the core <br>
> committers and makes it more costly to enhance the codebase in general.<br>
> <br>
> Thirdly, I'm concerned that the more code we have of this nature <br>
> (particular code which compiles script into c#), the more potential <br>
> security holes we have. This isn't too much of a concern right now but <br>
> will be come more of an issue in the future.<br>
> <br>
> Therefore, I would argue that OpenSimulator should only include in its <br>
> core distribution support for a few scripting languages. In my opinion <br>
> these would be LSL, maybe C# and possibly one other (maybe Python). <br>
> Support for other languages would come as optional plugins, available <br>
> either directly from the author or from some satellite repository <br>
> (perhaps similar to Perl's CPAN or PHP's PEAR). I would personally <br>
> prefer to see the core OpenSim distribution kept relatively lean and<br>
> mean.<br>
> <br>
> If necessary, I am happy to make any necessary infrastructure changes to<br>
> <br>
> make language plugins possible/easier (which probably also means making <br>
> much needed enhancements to the plugin system).<br>
> <br>
> What do other people think?<br>
> <br>
> Regards,<br>
> <br>
> -- <br>
> justincc<br>
> Justin Clark-Casey<br>
> <a href="http://justincc.wordpress.com">http://justincc.wordpress.com</a><br>
> _______________________________________________<br>
> Opensim-dev mailing list<br>
> Opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de<br>
> <a href="https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev">https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev</a><br>
> _______________________________________________<br>
> Opensim-dev mailing list<br>
> Opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de<br>
> <a href="https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev">https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev</a><br>
</tt></body></html>