Re: [mmox] XML serialization

Jon Watte <> Tue, 24 February 2009 21:18 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id DF5073A69E5 for <>; Tue, 24 Feb 2009 13:18:51 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.487
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.487 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.112, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 8xkRU+bMo5EB for <>; Tue, 24 Feb 2009 13:18:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id DCFE63A68CD for <>; Tue, 24 Feb 2009 13:18:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: by gxk7 with SMTP id 7so2770838gxk.13 for <>; Tue, 24 Feb 2009 13:19:08 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from :user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject:references:in-reply-to :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=zJTj2M4n61jpEpcAx6BHBfVxd4o6COAGzELHLtaAXN8=; b=HTyUMeYh1fd7K2dyabETr50NOQvKLf1auMKwR/jNNokAWdoBRNyVhK61loTBVJHwS1 KU5ihlVaCi+v8oKQly0dMXlqaDMdOKJINV/8ynh2TGc5J9TcwDLBhc1ckMjKOqBXJnkC AWfeJOjTkW/SWJ0/cpvBEPwYVI2cFuoefEzFc=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject :references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=UfWW0Oh6xaIX8Rcx7OfVmPRTik3fYFq2EWeB1NN4XWSSW2iy1H3si2gahxP2Qsra+p r9wdgFKD1U+Nduk+nhgIu5ev9cBp8pgsLHJVdkw07pXAGyFvrTBGwsjluBWyHzbm/naC yrcvcq9zCC5r5y+ZykUb/UssXxMe1cBYO2/dU=
Received: by with SMTP id e12mr163275anc.18.1235510348790; Tue, 24 Feb 2009 13:19:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ? ( []) by with ESMTPS id d38sm10129120and.49.2009. (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Tue, 24 Feb 2009 13:19:08 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <>
Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2009 13:19:04 -0800
From: Jon Watte <>
User-Agent: Thunderbird (Windows/20081209)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [mmox] XML serialization
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Massively Multi-participant Online Games and Applications <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2009 21:18:52 -0000

Lawson English wrote:
> Jon Watte wrote:
>> Personally, I think it's too early to really worry about it too much. 
>> I first want rough consensus on the model we're using -- I think 
>> most, but not all, participants on the list now understand that 
>> interoperating virtutal world objects practically require simulation 
>> hosts to talk to other simulation hosts. 
> which simulation hosts in Croquet/Qwaq are we talking about?

In Croquet, each participating peer would be a simulation host, 
authoritative for the objects that they introduce into the shared world.

> Seems to me that the forterra strategy, as implemented in SL, would 
> require sufficient extra server sapce to accommodate all 85000+ 
> concurrent users visiting 85000+ different simulators at the same 
> time....

We already discussed this, if you look in the archives. That is not 
true. If any Second Life customer interoperates with some other system, 
then it is true that the SL servers will have to funnel object 
information through their system to their clients and their objects, so 
that the clients can see the other systems, and the objects can 
interoperate with the objects from the other system. This is not a large 
additional load, because the simulation of the non-Second-Life objects 
is done by other hosts.
As long as one Second Life customer can only be in one place at a time, 
there will only need to be one avatar simulated by the Second Life 
servers, which is pretty much what they're already providing.