[sldev] Question: Replacing current group chat with XMPP?

Dahlia Trimble dahliatrimble at gmail.com
Fri Sep 12 10:40:30 PDT 2008


PSYC looks interesting but I can't seem to find any licensing terms on any
of their web sites. Also looks like they haven't had much opportunity to do
any really large scale testing of their protocol. Anyway if they are
interested in working with Opensim then this thread should probably be
continued on the opensim-dev mailing list. Details of the list can be found
at https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev

On Fri, Sep 12, 2008 at 10:00 AM, Harold Brown <labrat.hb at gmail.com> wrote:

> lynX a developer of PSYC has just recently downloaded the OpenSIM svn and
> had expressed interest (yesterday) of integrating PSYC with it (totally
> unrelated to the conversation here) I mentioned the discussion here and they
> posted the following on their wiki:
>
> http://about.psyc.eu/Second_Life
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Sep 11, 2008 at 10:11 PM, Argent Stonecutter <
> secret.argent at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2008-09-11, at 11:06, Robin Cornelius wrote:
>>
>>> Is there then a call to have a different type of group. One that does
>>> not have chat associated with it.
>>>
>>
>> That would be point 2 in http://jira.secondlife.com/browse/SVC-2818 .
>>
>> An alternative would be to allow you to have an association with a group
>> that doesn't include chat or any of the other high-impact features. There
>> are a number of groups that I would like to "suspend membership" in without
>> having to re-apply to rejoin.
>>
>> See http://jira.secondlife.com/browse/SVC-1173 .
>>
>> On 2008-09-11, at 11:45, David M Chess wrote:
>>
>>> I take it that this is a problem we'd rather not reproduce, rather than
>>> something that we want to make sure that an intragrid Group IM system also
>>> does.  :)
>>>
>>
>> It's just an indication that fairly high latency for starting a group
>> conversation isn't automatically a fatal flaw. Certainly 10-20 seconds
>> latency is entirely acceptable.
>>
>>  Given the number and volume of the voices I hear raised asking for the
>>> limit to be increased, I think it's pretty common for people to be in 25
>>> groups, for whatever reason.  Not necessarily 25 groups that really need a
>>> group chat channel, though.
>>>
>>
>> That would be the point there.
>>
>> I'd also like to note that person-person IM and group IM are generally
>> different kinds of conversation, have different goals, anddon't need to
>> share transport. For example, I could EASILY see logging in to IRC to get
>> into a group chat without wanting to get into point-to-point chat with
>> individuals, and vice versa.
>>
>> Also, it would be nice to be able to log in to office hours with a client
>> that doesn't require a wide open firewall.
>>
>> Using open protocols for IM and group IM would allow me to run (for
>> example) a shell IRC client or XMPP client on my colo server that I'm ssh-ed
>> into. I can't see that happening with any likely Vivox-based client.
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Policies and (un)subscribe information available here:
>> http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/SLDev
>> Please read the policies before posting to keep unmoderated posting
>> privileges
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Policies and (un)subscribe information available here:
> http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/SLDev
> Please read the policies before posting to keep unmoderated posting
> privileges
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.secondlife.com/pipermail/sldev/attachments/20080912/1a76e38e/attachment-0001.htm


More information about the SLDev mailing list