[sldev] Script compiler - was: Re: Refactoring and development economy

[Jim Purbrick (Babbage)]

The plan is to move to server side compilation in the short term so that 
we can be sure that LSL bytecode we are executing is the output of the 
LSL compiler and not just arbitrary bytes or carefully crafted LSO files 
designed to exploit some weakness in the LSL runtime.

The LSL compiler used by the asset upload framework is exactly the same 
code that is used in the current viewer compiler, so we can accept 
patches, but personally I would far rather see us move to allow other 
.NET languages than spend time patching and extending LSL.

In the long term I'd like to be able to accept arbitrary CLI assemblies 
that we can verify and trust to run in the server sandbox. This requires 
significant hardening of the simulator script sandbox and we'd have to 
put a lot of faith in Mono's nascent verifier, but I think it's a 
compelling endgame: use any language that targets the CLI to script SL 
along with the tools and debugging facilities you get with that 
language. Or invent your own. and call it LSL3 if you must ;-)

Cheers,

Jim

Felix Duesenburg wrote:
> Tateru Nino wrote:
>>
>>
>> The script compiler isn't really staying. There's the old LSL 
>> compiler which might stay in the viewer (or move to the sim, not sure 
>> about that yet) and the mono compiler which definitely isn't going 
>> into the viewer last we heard.
>>
>
> I keep hearing that, too, but so far it seems all rumours and nothing 
> conclusive. Can you cite sources? It's a difficult keyword to search 
> for, too many results. (To everybody: With things like that, always, 
> ALWAYS make proper citations with sources, please.)
>
> Because if that was so, I'd immediately stop all work with the script 
> compiler that I'm currently doing. But I've been in contact with 
> Lindens about a sandbox where to test my stuff should things go wrong, 
> and noone tried to discourage me. There are various JIRAs with feature 
> requests for LSL, but no Linden is answering there saying that it's 
> all going to be futile. I know that the current script compiler's days 
> are numbered, but features can be ported. If it was to be taken away 
> completely though, that would hurt.
>
> It would be good if we could have a statement from the horse's mouth, 
> saying it's either this way or that way to stop these rumours. Or a 
> pointer if we missed it. At the moment it feels rather uneasy indeed.
>
> Thanks,
> Felix
> _______________________________________________
> Click here to unsubscribe or manage your list subscription:
> /index.html