[opensource-dev] Consensus? was: Client-side scripting in Snowglobe

Ricky kf6kjg at gmail.com
Sun Feb 21 08:29:23 PST 2010


Look good to me.  As you said, a scripting engine (or three) could be
written as a plugin.  Then we'd only have to decide which plugin(s)
get shipped with the client by default. A much more fruitful
discussion I think.

Ricky
Cron Stardust

On Sunday, February 21, 2010, Carlo Wood <carlo at alinoe.com> wrote:
> It seems to me that most people still talk about untrusted,
> portable, and grid-wide supported downloadable scripts when
> talking about Client-side scripting (sorry Morgaine).
>
> So, I propose to go with that, and call anything else
> "Client-extensions".
>
> ---
>
> The remainder of this post is about Client-extensions.
>
> I sense consensus on the following layered design:
>
> [current code base]
>
>   + lots of hooks to be written
>
>   |
>   |
>   V
>
> C++ API [1]
>
>   |
>   |
>   V
>
> IPC API [2]
>
>   |
>   |
>   V
>
> Plugin(s)
>
>
> One or more plugins then could provide a client-side
> scripting engine; either for trusted for any language,
> or a secure API for an engine running the mono bytecode
> that LL is working on (or whatever).
>
> - A scripting engine for language XYZ.
>
> [1] Ie, based on the yet to be written LLStateMachine class.
> [2] Ie, a socket. What is more important is the protocol
>     that is being used here. I can imagine that this will
>     be LLSD, or something simular.
>
> --
> Carlo Wood <carlo at alinoe.com>
>
> PS Note that personally I'm against using mono for
>    clientside scripting...
>
> _______________________________________________
> Policies and (un)subscribe information available here:
> http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/OpenSource-Dev
> Please read the policies before posting to keep unmoderated posting privileges
>


More information about the opensource-dev mailing list