Re: [mmox] A tentative top-down analysis

[Christian Scholz <[e-mail]>]

Jon Watte schrieb:
> Christian Scholz wrote:
>> Jon Watte schrieb:
>>
>>> That's right! Incidentally, this matches almost exactly the 
>>> "connected server peers" model that I've been proposing.
>>>
>>> However, the objects themselves are owned by one of those N providers 
>>> (or else why is the provider supplying authoritative state for it?)
>>
>> But I want to own my data :-) 
> 
> Sorry, I'm confusing the terminology here. The server "owns" the object 
> in the sense that it is the authoritative source of property values for 
> that object. I did not mean to imply any ownership in the IP sense, 
> because that discussion does not apply to the particular technical 
> details we're talking about; it's handled at a different layer.

Ok, we should define some terminology at some point anyway.

>> So there could even be simple hosting servers which are dumb regarding 
>> the whole VW thing and simply host objects without ever doing any 
>> simulation.
>> And I can simply put those URLs into my users's service catalogue to 
>> be discovered by some simulator.
>>
> 
> Unfortunately, simulators use different scripting languages, execution 
> environments, APIs and architectures. Thus, you may be able to have a 
> dumb server (like a web server), but it could only serve an object to, 
> say, a Second Life-compatible server, or a Metaverse-compatible server, 
> unless the behavior of the object was re-developed for each simulation 
> platform.

Or it could provide different versions. Sort of like content negotiation.

-- Christian




-- 
Christian Scholz
Blog: http://mrtopf.de/blog
Company: http://comlounge.net
Podcasts: http://datawithoutborders.net, http://openweb-podcast.de