Re: [mmox] MMOX: Strawman scope/goals/approach

"Meadhbh Hamrick (Infinity)" <infinity@lindenlab.com> Fri, 27 February 2009 02:04 UTC

Return-Path: <infinity@lindenlab.com>
X-Original-To: mmox@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mmox@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 342D93A6BD2; Thu, 26 Feb 2009 18:04:25 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.517
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.517 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.082, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id RBc6diwi+CPE; Thu, 26 Feb 2009 18:04:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from tammy.lindenlab.com (tammy.lindenlab.com [64.154.223.128]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 650053A6BAA; Thu, 26 Feb 2009 18:04:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from regression.lindenlab.com (regression.lindenlab.com [10.1.16.8]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by tammy.lindenlab.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 464403DBC446; Thu, 26 Feb 2009 18:04:46 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <13BD2212-5FC0-4F89-8DB9-53AA07F5FA4F@lindenlab.com>
From: "Meadhbh Hamrick (Infinity)" <infinity@lindenlab.com>
To: Gareth Nelson <gareth@litesim.com>
In-Reply-To: <61dbdd7d0902261736o556ba122p3521581417bb95cf@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v930.3)
Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2009 18:04:45 -0800
References: <ebe4d1860902240729x5e86306bpd0950b05c3a11f28@mail.gmail.com> <OF7F32322B.61DEE52B-ON85257567.00564FEE-85257567.00585420@us.ibm.com> <49A7184D.3050602@gmail.com> <6CE24396-7167-4B37-A9AC-B1AA3CF7E7AF@lindenlab.com> <61dbdd7d0902261736o556ba122p3521581417bb95cf@mail.gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.930.3)
Cc: mmox-bounces@ietf.org, mmox@ietf.org, Jon Watte <jwatte@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [mmox] MMOX: Strawman scope/goals/approach
X-BeenThere: mmox@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Massively Multi-participant Online Games and Applications <mmox.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmox>, <mailto:mmox-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mmox>
List-Post: <mailto:mmox@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mmox-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmox>, <mailto:mmox-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2009 02:04:25 -0000

yes, but a reference implementation is not a work item on the group's  
charter.

and personally... ugh.. i've seen waaay too many times when specific  
implementation decisions for reference implementations were mistaken  
for protocol requirements and pain ensued.

i even prefer the term "example code" instead of "reference  
implementation" for this reason.

-cheers
-meadhbh

On Feb 26, 2009, at 5:36 PM, Gareth Nelson wrote:

> A reference implementation is always a handy thing to have :)
>
> On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 1:32 AM, Meadhbh Hamrick (Infinity)
> <infinity@lindenlab.com> wrote:
>> i don't think we get to mandate what code people implement the  
>> protocol in,
>> but i would certainly add lisp, smalltalk and occam to the list.
>>
>> seriously thought... remember... we're talking about a wire- 
>> protocol, not a
>> library that implements the protocol.
>>
>> On Feb 26, 2009, at 2:31 PM, Jon Watte wrote:
>>
>>> Gareth Nelson wrote:
>>>>
>>>> any code should be produced in. My vote is for python and C.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Let me vote for Lua and C++, and then the OpenSim people can vote  
>>> for C#
>>> and Java and we have all the bases covered :-)
>>>
>>>
>>>> games are relevant (after all, MMORPGs for example are just huge
>>>> virtual worlds with game rules thrown in), I fail to see how  
>>>> networked
>>>>
>>>
>>> I think that's a common mis-conception. Most (almost all) MMOGs do  
>>> not
>>> have much in the way of persistency, other than character  
>>> possessions and
>>> stats. They also have a very static world, that generally does not  
>>> allow
>>> users to move things around or place new things into the world.  
>>> Finally,
>>> they do not support any form of UGC, which I think is more or less a
>>> requirement for a "real" virtual world. Lacking all three means  
>>> that the
>>> technical job of implementing and running the MMORPG is much  
>>> easier, but it
>>> also puts them on a lower rung of the expressiveness. A VW could  
>>> express a
>>> MMORPG (with significant overhead compared to the MMORPG itself),  
>>> but a
>>> MMORPG couldn't express a VW.
>>>
>>>> Practically everything people do online is "multiuser", and lots of
>>>> things are "massively multiuser" - look at any big site such as
>>>> wikipedia for example.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> "What is virtual worlds" has been a general question for a long  
>>> time, but
>>> I believe the "rough consensus" answer is that it's at least:
>>>
>>> Interactive
>>> Persistent
>>> Identity Based
>>> Collaborative
>>> Supports UGC
>>> (controversial) Based on a 3D Simulation
>>>
>>> But, if we believe that we all need to agree on exactly what a  
>>> virtual
>>> world is before we can make progress, experience shows we won't be  
>>> able to
>>> make progress at all.
>>>
>>> Sincerely,
>>>
>>> jw
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> mmox mailing list
>>> mmox@ietf.org
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmox
>>
>>