Re: [ogpx] Synchronization of gestures

[Lawson English <[e-mail]>]

All this goes back to what I just posted on the SLDEV list about taking 
initiative and coding something up. Having the ability for clients to 
talk to each other rather than some 3rd party service might blur the 
line concerning what VWRAP is supposed to be talking about, but, IMHO, 
the line is getting blurred anyway.

What's the difference between a plugin sitting on someone's desktop in 
order to augment the client in some way, and a plugin that actually 
allows clients to talk to each other directly in order to collectively 
augment them in some way? As far as I'm concerned, these discussions 
about clients talking to each other are just extensions totalks about 
what responsibilities client plugins might have.

My current project is based on this idea:

 http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/User:Saijanai_Kuhn/Plugins_discussion#Proposed_Extension_to_Media_Plugin

I'm writing a SL client- squeak bridge (starting off easy with a port of 
my  do-nothing Python client for practice) that will allow me to test 
new client plugin ideas. The Holy Grail for the project will be to 
integrate Cobalt/Croquet with SL in some way(s) and that is just the tip 
of an iceberg that is being held under water by a large outcropping of 
land. There's more potential in P2P-VWRAP hybrids than there is in  P2P 
(Croquet/Cobalt) OR VWRAP (clear-cut client-server worlds) taken 
separately. While VWRAP/OGP/whatever's charter may not consider the P2P 
approach as relevant, the fact is, P2P is potentially in ANY extension 
of services involving clients which aren't talking exclusively to an old 
school SL simulator.


Lawson




Carlo Wood wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 04, 2009 at 06:11:10PM -0800, Han Sontse wrote:
>   
>> With all due respect,  Carlo, I am finding that I disagree with your analysis.
>>     
>
> There is no analysis.. it is something has been said before
> on the list: if YOU don't want something, then that doesn't
> mean there will be no need for it in the future by others.
>
> You shouldn't take YOUR experience and desires and then say:
> "we will never need this, NOBODY will EVER need this",
> while it's relatively easy and simple to add the *support*
> for it to the protocol!
>
> By adding the *possibility* for viewers to wait for others,
> you do not force anyone to do it different from what you
> describe. But you also don't take away the possibility to
> do it how other people WANT it (like me, I personally think
> this is important - so thus far we have a 50% - 50% vote for
> the NEED of this wait feature).
>
> So, to be really undiplomatic blunt: who are you to deny
> me this experience? While adding just a little to the protocol
> we BOTH can be happy? You can do it your way, and I can do it
> my way? But you say: "You don't need it" and want to remove
> the possibility from the protocol so that you can do it your
> way and I CANNOT do it the way I want ?!
>
> THAT is the reasoning behind NOT leaving out rather trivial
> options to the protocol. And really, this has been said on
> the list before a few times imho (and no, I'm not going to
> find that back).
>
>   
>> I have a lot of practical experience in SL getting animations
>> as well as sound and textures to synchronize under a lot
>> of different conditions by taking into account the client's existing
>> cacheing behavior.   I'm drawing on that experience for my assertions.
>>     
>
> I am too, and I say I need this.
>
>   
>> I can't think of a single reasonable use case that would *require* clients
>> to hold for the slowest link.  The examples you have suggested
>>     
>
> I can.
>
>   
>> don't require it to achieve the outcome you desire. 
>>     
>
> ??? Then you didn't read very well what I said.
> If you want to do what I said then you *NEED* the possibility to wait
> for other (some) clients (some limited time), and why not, have the
> possibility to abort, or continue anyway (as you want).
>
> Having those options you can synchronize the experience well within
> lag-time, well within typing-delay time (ie, under 1 second). If you
> don't wait, the playing time could run up till 30 seconds or more!
>
> Having those options you can synchronize the experience well within
> 1 second AND you can do what you want: just state don't wait for anyone
> and play stuff the second you get it.
>
> [...]
>   
>> So here I'll walk through an example... the hug:
>>
>> To synchronize a hug all that is needed is for the 
>>     
>
> "all that is needed" to accomplish YOUR needs and views.
> For me, I realllllly need to know when other clients are
> ready too.
>
> [...snip...]
>   
>> be longer for some clients than others.  The exact wall clock delay does not
>> matter since the end user has no idea when the event was actually sent.
>>     
>
> Yes we totally disagree here, and you are wrong: there are many other
> shared experiences (typed text, and remaining movement of the avatar
> before and after; not to mention voice chat) that need to be more or
> less in sync with gestures; the user WILL have an idea when the event
> was sent.
>
> The wall clock DOES matter - certainly when the delay can run
> up to a whole minute.
>
> You are "right" for delays less than a second, and I argue
> that we should try hard to get the shared experience synchronized
> within one second IF THE USER(S) SO DESIRE.
>
> I already gave you examples where it is notable when the delay
> is larger, but I guess every example is personal. If YOU don't
> care that your friends see you bolt for the door and once outside
> you jump and shout "Whooohooo!", while you really intended to
> first jump and shout and THEN run for the door, then well--
> that is entirely your choice. Now let me, and others, have mine.
>
> Another example, your hug: You initiate a hug request (your client
> already has the needed assets or starts to download them immediately).
> By the time that your partner clicks 'Ok', your viewer is ready
> and immediately starts to play the hug. While hugging you say:
> "Mmmmmmmmmmm, so nice". And YOU don't care if your partner sees
> that text while they don't see you hugging yet; others do however.
> Because others DO, we NEED support in the protocol to know when
> other clients are ready (at least, have all the needed data
> cached; any other delay is too short to be bothered with-- I'm
> with you on that then).
>
>