[sldev] [META][AWG]log chat of AWG meeting Friday, Oct 5, 2007

[Lawson English]

Jason Giglio wrote:
> Zha Ewry wrote:
>> Why get so pedantic? Because, we need to be able to say "We store the 
>> asset, in the asset server, and we pass it to other components, via a 
>> URL when passing by reference, and as a structured chunk of LLSD, 
>> when passing a copy down to the internal components of a server or 
>> client. And we need to distinguish between the copied hunk of state, 
>> and the web addressable item which gives us a copy of that state.
>
>
> "Asset Instance" works for me, and anyone even a little familiar with 
> OOP will know what we mean instantly.
>
>

Not in a shared, collaborative environmnent like SL.

The term "instance" takes on new subtlties in this situation.

Consider the design issues of the old OpenDoc document format and 
behavior. "Object" and "instance" are very complex in such a situation.

What does it mean to "copy" an object when it can be viewed by many 
different programs at the same time, many of which might want editing 
privileges, for example?

http://mactech.com/articles/mactech/Vol.13/13.06/LinksinOpenDocParts/index.html


The issues that arose for distributed objects are starting to appear in 
the context of assets in a virtual world, which is an even larger issue 
than what OD had to worry about, which was quite complex, even so.

L