<html><head><style type="text/css"><!-- DIV {margin:0px;} --></style></head><body><div style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:12pt"><div>Sorry, the other assets are not just "small texture data". We have terrainImages, amongst other things.<br><br>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. <br><br>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.<br><br>Charles<br></div><div style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 12pt;"><br><div style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 13px;"><font size="2" face="Tahoma"><hr size="1"><b><span style="font-weight: bold;">From:</span></b> Melanie <melanie@t-data.com><br><b><span style="font-weight: bold;">To:</span></b>
opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de<br><b><span style="font-weight: bold;">Sent:</span></b> Monday, February 16, 2009 4:44:56 AM<br><b><span style="font-weight: bold;">Subject:</span></b> Re: [Opensim-dev] Please do not revert fixes without careful comtemplation<br></font><br>
Again, I'd like to stress that I believe this is too dangerous to do <br>for anything other than textures.<br>It is also not really needed for things other than textures, since <br>the other assets are comparatively small, textural data.<br><br>I would not want to risk even the smallest chance of a hash <br>collision on script source.<br><br>Melanie<br><br>Stefan Andersson wrote:<br>> Coming in a bit from the side here,<br>> <br>> <br>> <br>> 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.<br>> <br>> <br>> 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.<br>> <br>> <br>> I realize it's a separate discussion, just chipping in my two
cents.<br>> <br>> <br>> Best regards,<br>> Stefan Andersson<br>> Tribal Media AB<br>> <br>> <br>> <br>> <br>> <br>> <br>> Date: Sat, 14 Feb 2009 17:49:22 +0200<br>> From: <a ymailto="mailto:tommi.s.e.laukkanen@gmail.com" href="mailto:tommi.s.e.laukkanen@gmail.com">tommi.s.e.laukkanen@gmail.com</a><br>> To: <a ymailto="mailto:mmazur@gmail.com" href="mailto:mmazur@gmail.com">mmazur@gmail.com</a><br>> CC: <a ymailto="mailto:opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de" href="mailto:opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de">opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de</a><br>> Subject: Re: [Opensim-dev] Please do not revert fixes without careful comtemplation<br>> <br>> <br>> Hello,<br>> <br>> 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?<br>> <br>> regards,<br>> Tommi<br>> <br>> <br>> On Sat, Feb 14, 2009 at 5:06 PM, Mike Mazur <<a ymailto="mailto:mmazur@gmail.com" href="mailto:mmazur@gmail.com">mmazur@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>> <br>> Hi,<br>> <br>> On Sat, Feb 14, 2009 at 4:05 PM, Tommi Laukkanen<br>> <br>> <<a ymailto="mailto:tommi.s.e.laukkanen@gmail.com" href="mailto:tommi.s.e.laukkanen@gmail.com">tommi.s.e.laukkanen@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>> <br>>> I was talking with mikkopa and he suggested we should create two tables to<br>>> cover AssetBase to solve this issue properly. Namely AssetMetadata for<br>>> metadata information and AssetData for blobs to avoid situation where we end<br>>> up accessing also the blob data just to read metadata.<br>> <br>> I was hoping not to have to do that.<br>> <br>> It should be straightforward to support the
current<br>> AssetBase/AssetMetadata composition in the existing OpenSim data<br>> layers, but as sdague warned me earlier, by mapping multiple classes<br>> to one table I was entering a world of pain. Seems that's exactly<br>> what's happening with NHibernate.<br>> <br>> The reason I introduced the AssetMetadata class is to supply metadata<br>> information only for some requests that Cable Beach, the new asset<br>> server, supports. Now I realize that this was probably a premature<br>> optimization.<br>> <br>> Instead of modifying the DB schema, we could have AssetBase inherit<br>> from AssetMetadata, as I outlined before[1]. Alternatively, we could<br>> get rid of AssetMetadata altogether and store everything in AssetBase<br>> as before, splitting out the metadata sometime in the future when a<br>> use case warrants it.<br>> <br>> What do you think?<br>> <br>> Thanks,<br>> Mike<br>>
<br>> <br>> [1] <a href="https://lists.berlios.de/pipermail/opensim-dev/2009-February/004918.html" target="_blank">https://lists.berlios.de/pipermail/opensim-dev/2009-February/004918.html</a><br>> <br>> <br>> <br>> <br>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------<br>> <br>> _______________________________________________<br>> Opensim-dev mailing list<br>> <a ymailto="mailto:Opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de" href="mailto:Opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de">Opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de</a><br>> <a href="https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev" target="_blank">https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev</a><br>_______________________________________________<br>Opensim-dev mailing list<br><a ymailto="mailto:Opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de" href="mailto:Opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de">Opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de</a><br><a href="https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev"
target="_blank">https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev</a><br></div></div></div></body></html>