[sldev] [AWG] Zero's office hour on Tuesday, 2007-10-30

[Tao Takashi]

2007/10/29, Mark Burhop <mark.burhop at gmail.com>:
>
>
>
> > On Oct 26, 2007, at 1:42 PM, Rob Lanphier wrote:
> >
> > The conversation about scope here is pretty timely.  Zero, Liana and I
> > had a great conversation yesterday about the topic, and decided it would
> >
> > be good to make sure we talk about this at Zero's office hour on
> > Tuesday, 1pm PDT:
> > https://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/User:Zero_Linden
> >
> > Zero's going to also repeat the discussion at the Thursday, 7:30am PDT
> > meeting as well.
> >
> >
> >
> It sounds like AWG is backing off scalability and is focusing on the
> openness aspect - especially openness of protocols. Not that they aren't
> related, just that the focus has changed.  Is this correct?



I am just wondering at which point we actually start talking about the
actual protocol ;-) Even the scope discussion might be IMHO more useful if
there is something to look at. It might not be final or even just a sketch
but it might serve as an example for the discussion as well as might be a
starting poing for interested coders to get going.

As for the scalability I think with opening it up the proposed way it should
already become somewhat more scalable as not everything has to be in one
place. Moreover the sim is not doing everything anymore. This design will
also enable people to experiment with different ideas for solving the
scalability problem.

As for the scope I think for me it's rather clear that in the end SL like it
is today (as in features, object model and probably also big parts of data
structures) needs to run to make sense for Linden Lab to do that project. I
also think that we need to find some sort of balance between overengineering
it and keeping it too much constraint to the SL use case.

But I think it needs to evolve anyway. Virtual Worlds are such a big area
which is still in the beginning of it's exploration. Moreover the technology
behind this is somewhat more complex than it was back then with the Web. I
would expect some revisions of this standard.

So in summary I hope we can keep this scope discussion short and maybe
postpone it a little bit to a point where we actually have some decision to
make and instead start definining e.g. the login process (although I still
find giving object from A to B a much more interesting use case as it might
confrot us with all sorts of problems which might take some time to
discuss).

See you tomorrow!

-- Tao

PS: And I still want to discuss the naming issue with somebody or at least
somebody to define one official name which is memorable and which I can
mention when I talk about this project. But this does not need to happen in
Zero's office hour.

-- 
taotakashi at gmail.com
http://taotakashi.wordpress.com
http://worldofsl.com

RL: Christian Scholz, cs at comlounge.net
http://mrtopf.de

http://comlounge.net
http://comlounge.tv
http://mrtopf.tv
http://dev.comlounge.net
IRC: MrTopf/Tao_T
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.secondlife.com/pipermail/sldev/attachments/20071029/65ef57b3/attachment.htm