On Fri, Oct 16, 2009 at 15:46, Vaughn Deluca <vaughn.deluca at gmail.com> wrote: > > On Fri, Oct 16, 2009 at 7:03 PM, Joshua Bell <josh at lindenlab.com> wrote: >> >> On Fri, Oct 16, 2009 at 8:43 AM, Sean Hennessee <sean at uci.edu> wrote: >>> >>> Meadhbh Hamrick wrote: >>>> >>>> On Fri, Oct 16, 2009 at 1:51 AM, Morgaine >>>> <morgaine.dinova at googlemail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> On Fri, Oct 16, 2009 at 9:16 AM, Infinity Linden (Meadhbh Hamrick) >>>>> <infinity at lindenlab.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> also. just a show of hands. who's planning on implementing the tourist >>>>>> model? > > [...] > >> >> There are two distinct definitions in extremely common use on the 'net: >> >> (1) to implement: write the code for something >> (2) to implement: configure and deploy code for something >> >> My interpretation of this thread is that Infinity is using definition #1, >> Sean and Morgaine are using definition #2. Infinity is asking specifically: >> "who will write the code that adds support for the protocol to a piece of >> software?" not "who will make use of software that implements the protocol?" > > *ahum* I was most definitely using definition #2. Yet, i *can* code, and > given the importance of this aspect, i am certainly willing to assist in > making this use case happen. However, i am not a professional programer, but > just a scientist, coding my own analysis softeware. So i am likely to need a > bit of help from some friends :) okay. my bad. i was just kinda shocked by what i perceived as an assertion by morgaine that there was going to be a 1:1 relation between developers and users. i'll let her make that case if that's what she really believes, but will assume she interpreted my question to be "who's interested in deploying services that implement protocol transactions in accord with the tourist model?" rather than "who's interested in implementing the tourist model in code?" as it was intended to mean. i think one of the most important outcomes of this process will be an open standard that anyone can implement without royalty payments, including FLOSS developers. an operator like linden cannot be all things to all people and implement every feature. but maybe in the future we'll be able to point people to OpenSim and say "we can't implement the feature you want, but maybe you can implement it yourself using this nice codebase the community has put together for you." and then, "hey look over there! there's an archipelago of tourist sites or here's our more locked down world. maybe it makes sense for you to deploy here." i think if we can do that, we will have won. (and not just SL or OpenSim or realXtend or whomever, but all of us.) > On the other hand, i am convinced that a proper implementation of the SL use > case (this time in the sense of definition #1) will generate about all the > code we need for the tourist case. The difference between the SL model and > the tourist model is largely at the policy level. But when we get down to > the specs, that will become clear soon enough. > Regarding the coding, i think Agent Domain code was written this summer. Is > that available somewhere? i would like to have a look at that, to get a > better feel for the size of the problem. > -Vaughn > >> >> _______________________________________________ >> ogpx mailing list >> ogpx at ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ogpx >> > > > _______________________________________________ > ogpx mailing list > ogpx at ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ogpx > >
Note Well: Messages sent to this mailing list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.