<html>
<head>
<style>
.hmmessage P
{
margin:0px;
padding:0px
}
body.hmmessage
{
font-size: 10pt;
font-family:Verdana
}
</style>
</head>
<body class='hmmessage'>
Hm, thinking a bit more about it, I guess you have a very good point there;<BR>
<BR>
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.<BR>
<BR>
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.<BR>
<BR>
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?<BR>
<BR>
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.<BR>
<BR>Best regards,<BR>Stefan Andersson<BR>Tribal Media AB<BR><BR><BR><BR><BR>> Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2009 08:24:52 -0500<BR>> From: teravus@gmail.com<BR>> To: opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de<BR>> Subject: Re: [Opensim-dev] AssetBase and metadata<BR>> <BR>> To the 'all assets have inventory items associated with them', no,<BR>> they don't, however, there's no harm in requesting the inventory item<BR>> where possible. It would limit the UUIDs that systems would have<BR>> access to as a reference, as well. I'm sure that there will be some<BR>> methods that must use Asset ID. Mostly, images. I suppose object<BR>> inventory might use Asset ID also, but probably does not have to until<BR>> they're requested by the client for editing.<BR>> <BR>> To the 'So I guess I don't understand what specific case you're<BR>> referring to?', See last Tuesday's Zero meeting for several references<BR>> to the pitfalls of Hypergrid (and it's not just Zero saying things to<BR>> criticize it. It's our users as well. That was a widely positive<BR>> meeting towards Hypergrid to the detriment of LLOGP. Mingled within<BR>> that, the way we handle property was the main criticism.<BR>> <BR>> Reference: http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/User:Zero_Linden/Office_Hours/2009_Jan_27<BR>> <BR>> I was saying that currently, we're doing nothing at all to limit<BR>> trust. If we maintain this approach, it will be a big factor in<BR>> other, non-currently-codified, standards being adopted and It'll<BR>> likely be impossible to fully implement other 'permissioned' standards<BR>> without some way to check the permissions first (such as OGP).<BR>> Currently, directly requesting Assets precludes this option. Not all<BR>> virtual worlds will have 'Property', but the ones that do will suffer.<BR>> Comparing to a web server, think .htaccess.<BR>> <BR>> Best Regards<BR>> <BR>> Teravus<BR>> <BR>> On 2/2/09, Stefan Andersson <stefan@tribalmedia.se> wrote:<BR>> > Are we sure all assets have inventory items associated with them?<BR>> ><BR>> > I can think of scripted objects that set textureIds programatically.<BR>> > (Melanie pointed that out to me)<BR>> ><BR>> > You can also have the case where you upload a texture (yes, it's in<BR>> > inventory) apply it to a shirt, then delete the original inventory item (the<BR>> > asset is still referenced from within the shirt asset, but is in no<BR>> > inventory)<BR>> ><BR>> > So I guess I don't understand what specific case you're referring to?<BR>> ><BR>> > Best regards,<BR>> > Stefan Andersson<BR>> > Tribal Media AB<BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>> > > Date: Sun, 1 Feb 2009 23:58:55 -0500<BR>> > > From: teravus@gmail.com<BR>> > > To: opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de<BR>> > > Subject: Re: [Opensim-dev] AssetBase and metadata<BR>> > ><BR>> > > Is there any reason that we don't request items from the asset server<BR>> > > internally by the inventory UUID instead of the asset UUID?<BR>> > > Requesting assets by inventory UUID would make it a LOT simpler to<BR>> > > apply permissions at the trusted service level instead of at the<BR>> > > simulator level.<BR>> > ><BR>> > > Best Regards<BR>> > ><BR>> > > Teravus<BR>> > ><BR>> > > On 2/1/09, Mike Mazur <mmazur@gmail.com> wrote:<BR>> > > > Hi,<BR>> > > ><BR>> > > > On Fri, 30 Jan 2009 07:37:27 -0500<BR>> > > > Sean Dague <sdague@gmail.com> wrote:<BR>> > > ><BR>> > > > > It's fine for the object to be called AssetMetaData, just don't make<BR>> > > > > the property that.<BR>> > > ><BR>> > > > On Fri, 30 Jan 2009 14:51:12 +0000 (GMT)<BR>> > > > MW <michaelwri22@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:<BR>> > > ><BR>> > > > > I agree, I'd say call the class AssetMetaData, but just call the<BR>> > > > > property (in AssetBase) MetaData.<BR>> > > ><BR>> > > > Makes perfect sense. Thanks for the feedback.<BR>> > > ><BR>> > > > Mike<BR>> > > > _______________________________________________<BR>> > > > Opensim-dev mailing list<BR>> > > > Opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de<BR>> > > > https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev<BR>> > > ><BR>> > > _______________________________________________<BR>> > > Opensim-dev mailing list<BR>> > > Opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de<BR>> > > https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev<BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>> > _______________________________________________<BR>> > Opensim-dev mailing list<BR>> > Opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de<BR>> > https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev<BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>> _______________________________________________<BR>> Opensim-dev mailing list<BR>> Opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de<BR>> https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev<BR><BR></body>
</html>