Re: [mmox] XML serialization

[Lawson English <[e-mail]>]

Jon Watte wrote:
> 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.
>

Which non-SL objects are we talking about? scripted behavior can be 
added to any SL object or objects. Are you suggesting that the SL 
simulator handle the scripted i/o from 15,000 objects living in another 
sim each with potentially hundreds of active scripts?


Lawson