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

[Harold Brown]

GPL version 2
http://www.psyced.org/dist/LICENSE.txt


On Fri, Sep 12, 2008 at 10:40 AM, Dahlia Trimble <dahliatrimble at gmail.com>wrote:

> 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
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20080912/12eb18c2/attachment.htm