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

[dirk husemann]

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*.
i know. we worked that out. my thinking though was that we assume
permissions to be binding and not explicitly spec that they are just a
bunch of bits that we can ignore. what's your thinking on that?

>
>>> 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.
sorry, i misunderstood you then, thought you were including "stuff you
leave behind" in your answer.
>
>
>> 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.
bringing up an asset in my inventory is for me a client internal
operation. as long as it's not rezz'ed i don't think we have to bother
about which region domain i'm in. if i change a property of an asset in
my inventory that should go back directly to the asset server of that
object. still nothing to do with the region domain i'm in. it won't even
notice that i did something with that object in my inventory.
>
> 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.
agree. domain-fred-doesn't-trust doesn't even notice that i looked at
"fred's cool shirt" in my inventory.
>
> 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.
why? you can't rez it there anyhow and you've not been wearing it when
you entered that domain. i'd leave this entirely to the client: the
client could have a fallback appearance (if you don't want to appear
naked in that domain) to use when you enter domains where you cannot
take clothing/stuff you are wearing with you. from an architecture point
of view i don't care.

    cheers,
    dirk/dr scofield

-- 
dr dirk husemann, pervasive computing, ibm zurich research lab
--- hud at zurich.ibm.com --- +41 44 724 8573 --- SL: dr scofield