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

[Lawson English]

Argent Stonecutter wrote:
>
> On 10-Oct-2007, at 01:07, dirk husemann wrote:
>> if yo change owner & group, doesn't that constitute a transfer? with a
>> no-transfer asset you'd go against the wishes of the creator then.
>
> Owner, yes. Group no. But more to the point, *permissions are 
> inherently advisory between domains operated by different organizations*.
>
>>> It can apply to stuff you never even rez in that domain. You might
>>> make a change to something in your inventory in a domain that has the
>>> same trust level as the original domain, you don't want those changes
>>> lost when you return.
>
>> stuff i leave behind: that is in my view like dropping a snap-shot. it's
>> not coming back with me. i would not expect changes that i inflict on it
>> in the other domain to have repercussions on the original asset.
>
> I'm sorry, I just said that I'm not talking about stuff you leave 
> behind. I was clarifying what stuff you DON'T leave behind could include.
>
>> inventory changes: that raises the interesting question of whether my
>> inventory is modulated by the domain i'm in? in other words, will my
>> inventory change depending on where i am or will i always see my full
>> inventory, i just won't be able to rez some items in certain domains?
>
> OK, I'm not just talking about the list of objects in my inventory, 
> I'm talking about the assets themselves. When you go from one domain 
> to another, and go into your inventory, and bring up the properties of 
> an object in your inventory, where is the asset that you are bringing 
> up the properties on? The trust relationship between the domain the 
> asset is in and the domain you're in should determine if you can bring 
> up the properties at all, and *separately* whether you can get at the 
> content of the asset itself.
>
> That is, you bring up "fred's cool shirt" in domain-fred-doesn't-trust 
> and you see the name, owner, description, rights, and so on. But you 
> still can't wear the shirt.
>
> What I'm envisioning here is that *in that domain* that shirt is 
> represented by a placeholder copy of the asset that's a reference back 
> to the original.
> _______________________________________________

I think that things might even become MORE complicated. As I said, 
distributed object systems have to deal with many of these issues. I 
believe that the one that dealt with them most like what we're talking 
about here is the old OpenDoc compound document system. Certainly, OD 
went further in its discussion of the issues than OLE ever did:


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