Re: [ogpx] Tourist use case

[Carlo Wood <carlo at alinoe.com>]

On Fri, Oct 16, 2009 at 03:35:57PM +0200, Vaughn Deluca wrote:
> Especially since there is nothing to prevent a configuration that works exactly
> as the current SL use case. So nothing  has to be sacrificed, yet a much richer
> set of deployment patterns becomes possible.
> 
> -Vaughn 

+1


I think that as soon as a user runs into "sorry, can't do-- because we don't
trust this or that service", they will be ANNOYED, and nothing else.

As a result, people will find the path of least resistance where apparently
two demands can be conflicting:

1) Being able to TP to that other destination
2) Being able to access ones inventory

Personally I feel not very confident that the combination of both is
going to work anywhere satisfactory given the intentions shown so far;
therefore I think it will be very important to have the possibility of
separate asset services.

Suddenly I see a glimpse of light: why can't it be possible to run
my OWN (personal!) inventory? Surely nobody is going to forbid me to
put FULL-PERM stuff in it? And even more surely nobody is going to
stop others from accessing my inventory when I use it (ie, to see
my attachments; or to see what I just rezzed).

I'd be very happy with my own personal inventory, even if on some
worlds they only allow me to put 'full perm' stuff in it. At least
I'll know what I can use everywhere: if I can put it in my inventory,
I will have it at my disposal everywhere.

Dream or not, this is definitely not going to happen if VWRAP
demands that the asset service is part of the agent service.

-- 
Carlo Wood <carlo at alinoe.com>